Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Procedure > Levenson CrimPro > Flashcards

Levenson CrimPro Flashcards

1
Q

Katz v. United States

A

REP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

U.S. v. Jones

A

Trespass theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Carpenter v. United States

A

No historical GPS cell phone data without a warrant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

U.S. v. Dunn

A

Curtilage factors (proximity to home, within same enclosure as home, privacy steps taken, nature of use)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Florida v. Riley

A

Helicopter peeking is not a search

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Kyllo v. United States

A

Thermal imager (advanced tech) a search. Factors: look at home? tech within general use? Reveal intimate affairs?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

United States v. Knotts

A

Beepers not a search so long as there’s no trespass. If they reveal information that could have been gotten via just watching/videotaping/etc., not a search (in public)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Smith v. Maryland

A

Pen registers not a search (third party doctrine)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Florida v. Jardines

A

Dog sniffs that trespass onto home/curtilage a search

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Illinois v. Caballes

A

Dog sniffs during a car stop not a search (so long as search not extended for sniff)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Illinois v. Gates

A

Overturned Aguilar/Spinelli, probable cause is determined by totality of the circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Aguilar/Spinelli

A

If cops use informant, must show that informant is reliable and determine the veracity of the information given

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Maryland v. Pringle

A

Probable cause for drugs in car can mean cops have probable cause to search all in the car (so long as they seem like they might be drug users)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Whren v. United States

A

Don’t look at subjective intent of cops. Standard is objective

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Andresen v. Maryland

A

Typically, catch-all wording in warrants is bad. However, if limited by context of the warrant, can be ok

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Groh v. Ramirez

A

Must refer to the items to be seized in the warrant. Can do so by referencing the affidavit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Muehler v. Mena

A

Can detain, handcuff, and question occupants during a search

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Wilson v. Layne

A

Media may not search with cops unless fulfilling a law enforcement purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

United States v. Bailey

A

Can’t detain if someone isn’t in immediate proximity of search area

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Warden v. Hayden

A

Hot pursuit (can search for person and evidence)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Payton v. N.Y.

A

No exception to warrant requirement to enter an apartment/home to make a homicide arrest (not hot pursuit or an exigency)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Collins v. Virginia

A

Automobile exception doesn’t apply on curtilage or in home

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Missouri v. McNeely

A

No per se exception for DUI blood tests. Case-by-case analysis where you ask whether they could get a warrant before BAC dissipates

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Maryland v. King

A

No suspicion required for post-arrest DNA swabs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart

A

Preventing injury to someone satisfies the exigency exception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Kentucky v. King

A

Preventing destruction of evidence satisfies exigency exception AND it’s ok for cops to create exigency so long as they’ve acted within the bounds of 4A up to that point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Minnesota v. Dickerson

A

Establishes plain touch doctrine, but plain touch does not equal manipulating object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Chimel v. California

A

Grab area rule for searches incident to arrest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Riley v. California

A

Cannot search phones incident to arrest unless there’s truly an exigency or you get a warrant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Arizona v. Gant

A

Car searches incident to arrest: if suspect in back of patrol car, may not search passenger compartment of car unless there’s reason to believe evidence of the crime of arrest is present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Maryland v. Buie

A

Establishes protective sweep “exception”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Georgia v. Randolph

A

Spouse cannot give permission to search a house when other spouse is physically present and forbidding permission

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Fernandez v. California

A

Spouse can give permission to search house even when the reason the other spouse is absent is because the police have taken him away

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Camara v. Municipal Court

A

Establishes administrative search procedures. No P/C required so long as reasonable legislative scheme + administrative warrant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

New York v. Burger

A

Closely regulated businesses do not need admin warrant. Need (1) substantial government interest, (2) show that search fulfills that interest, and (3) legislative scheme that provides notice and limits discretion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

City of Los Angeles v. Patel

A

Motels are not a closely regulated business, cops can still search with admin warrant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

United States v. Flores-Montano

A

Routine secondary searches at border require no suspicion. Factors for “routine”: non-invasive, non-destructive, put car back together, 2-3 hours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

United States v. Montoya-Hernandez

A

Nonroutine border searches (like looking up alimentary canal) require reasonable suspicion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz

A

DUI checkpoints (suspicionless stops to check for drunkenness) ok

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond

A

Drug interdiction checkpoints not ok, this is law enforcement investigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

New Jersey v. TLO

A

Individual student searches require only reasonable suspicion

42
Q

Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding

A

If individual student search particularly invasive, there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of dangerous item

43
Q

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton

A

Random drug testing of school football team ok

44
Q

Board of Education v. Earls

A

Random drug tests of all extracurricular activities ok

45
Q

Ferguson v. City of Charleston

A

Drug testing pregnant women and sending info to law enforcement not ok (primary purpose is law enforcement, not health and safety)

46
Q

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

A

If someone is entering GenPop, no suspicion needed to strip/cavity search. Court leaves open possibility of suspicion required for non-GenPop

47
Q

United States v. Knights

A

Probation searches require reasonable suspicion only

48
Q

Samson v. California

A

Parolee searches require no suspicion

49
Q

United States v. Mendenhall

A

Test to determine if someone is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. If not, consensual encounter

50
Q

Atwater v. City of Lago Vista

A

Can arrest for any crime, not just arrestable crimes

51
Q

Virginia v. Moore

A

Can arrest for crimes that state law deems non-arrestable, so long as there’s probable cause

52
Q

Terry v. Ohio

A

Establishes reasonable suspicion for temporary investigative detentions. R/S = particularized facts that lead to reasonable inferences of crime

53
Q

Navarette v. California

A

Anonymous 911 call saying that dangerous driver on road that identified type of car and license plate and direction was sufficient for R/S

54
Q

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District

A

Can ask for ID on Terry Stops + giving ID not self-incrimination for 5A purposes

55
Q

United States v. Arvizu

A

Establishes totality of the circumstances factors for Terry car stops

56
Q

Florida v. J.L.

A

Not enough for R/S when anonymous tipster merely described what someone looked like and where they were

57
Q

Illinois v. Wardlow

A

Running from cops can contribute to R/S

58
Q

Hudson v. Michigan

A

No exclusionary rule for knock and announce violations

59
Q

Weeks v. United States

A

Establishes exclusionary rule for federal jurisdiction

60
Q

Mapp v. Ohio

A

Incorporates exclusionary rule against the states

61
Q

Herring v. United States

A

Exclusionary rule will only be used for intentional, reckless, or systemic 4A violations

62
Q

Heien v. North Carolina

A

Reasonable mistakes of law not 4A violations

63
Q

Utah v. Strieff

A

Outstanding warrant attenuates taint of illegal search/seizure

64
Q

Rakas v. Illinois

A

Establishes standing doctrine for exclusionary rule. Cannot assert exclusionary rule if your rights (i.e. your REP) weren’t violated

65
Q

Byrd v. United States

A

Driver of rental car who is not on the rental agreement has REP in the car

66
Q

Minnesota v. Carter

A

A temporary guest using a house for commercial purposes has no REP in that house

67
Q

Brendlin v. California

A

All passengers are seized when a car is pulled over and may challenge the seizure

68
Q

Murray v. U.S.

A

Independent source

69
Q

Nix v. Williams

A

Inevitable discovery

70
Q

U.S. v. Leon

A

Good faith exception. If cops get signed warrant that ultimately did not have probable cause, will not be excluded

71
Q

Miranda v. Arizona

A

Lol

72
Q

Dickerson v. United States

A

Worst case ever. Miranda is a “constitutional rule” (but not a part of the Constitution…………) So Congress could not legislatively overturn it

73
Q

J.D.B. v. North Carolina

A

Age can be used to determine whether someone is in custody (only subjective factor)

74
Q

Howes v. Fields

A

Interviewing a suspect who is in jail is not per se a custodial interrogation, particularly if you tell him he is free to return to GenPop

75
Q

Rhode Island v. Innis

A

Interrogation can either be direct questioning or actions that a reasonable officer should know would elicit an incriminating response from suspect

76
Q

Oregon v. Elstad

A

Initial unMirandized confession does not make later Mirandized confession inadmissible (unless Seibert situation)

77
Q

Missouri v. Seibert

A

Two-stage interrogations make the second, Mirandized confession inadmissible if the second confession is (1) part of same continuous interrogation or (2) a deliberate skirting of Miranda and was not accompanied by curative measures

78
Q

U.S. v. Patane

A

Physical evidence obtained by a Miranda violation will not be suppressed

79
Q

North Carolina v. Butler

A

Suspect can implicitly waive his Miranda rights by talking (even though suspect refuses to sign a waiver)

80
Q

Berghuis v. Thompkins

A

Suspect must invoke right to remain silent either by (1) remaining silent through whole interrogation or (2) expressly invoking it by speaking. Suspect can waive right to silence by confessing, even after a long period of silence

81
Q

Michigan v. Mosley

A

Once suspect invokes right to remain silent, cops can reinitiate an interrogation so long as initial invocation was “scrupulously honored.” Factors include: different officers, different location, time lapse, different crime being asked about

82
Q

Edwards v. Arizona

A

Once suspect has invoked right to counsel, police may never reinitiate. Suspect must reinitiate (pending Shatzer)

83
Q

Maryland v. Shatzer

A

Once suspect has invoked right to counsel, police may reinitiate interrogation if suspect has been released from custody and fourteen days have passed

84
Q

Davis v. United States

A

Suspect must expressly, unequivocally invoke right to counsel

85
Q

Harris v. N.Y.

A

Statements made in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment

86
Q

N.Y. v. Quarles

A

Public safety exception for Miranda

87
Q

Massiah v. U.S.

A

Once right to counsel (6A) attaches, government may not deliberately elicit incriminating information without counsel present

88
Q

Montejo v. Louisiana

A

If counsel has been assigned, but right to counsel has not been expressly invoked, police may approach suspect and ask them to waive Miranda. If they do, that functions as a 6A waiver too

89
Q

Texas v. Cobb

A

6A is offense specific

90
Q

Blockburger v. U.S.

A

Determining if something is the “same offense” for 6A purposes = do they have the same elements? If so, same offense. If even one element different, different offenses

91
Q

Kastigar v. United States

A

Government may compel testimony by granting suspects use immunity; use immunity sufficient to cover entire 5A right against self-incrimination

92
Q

Wade/Gilbert Rule

A

Right to counsel at all in-person IDs after formal charges have been filed. Evidence from an illegal lineup may not be introduced at trial. Victim may make an in-court ID so long as government shows by clear and convincing evidence that ID is not tainted by the bad lineup

93
Q

Kirby v. Illinois

A

No right to counsel for in person IDs done before formal charges filed

94
Q

United States v. Ash

A

No right to counsel for photographic IDs

95
Q

Manson v. Brathwaite

A

Even if an ID is unnecessarily suggestive, can still be used if otherwise reliable. Factors for reliability include (1) opportunity for witness to view suspect, (2) detail of description, (3) certainty of witness, (4) time lapse between event and identification, and (5) totality of circumstances

96
Q

Perry v. New Hampshire

A

Overly suggestive IDs will only be suppressed if done by the police

97
Q

Gideon v. Wainwright

A

Establishes right to counsel

98
Q

Strickland v. Washington

A

Establishes test for ineffective assistance of counsel. (1) Below professional level of assistance (must show specific examples), (2) Prejudicial to defense

99
Q

McCoy v. Louisiana

A

If counsel concedes D’s guilt in a capital case over D’s protests, no prejudicial showing required. Per se structural error

100
Q

Faretta v. California

A

Right to self-representation. Court most have a colloquy with D and explain the consequences of his actions and establish competence

Criminal Procedure (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions