MEE Flashcards
Law Enforcement Vehicle Stops:
A police officer may make a stop of vehicle upon reasonable suspicion that the car is violating the law. He may detain the car/occupants for a brief investigatory inquiry (called a Terry Stop).
He may not extend the time beyond that investigation unless he has grounds to do. During that search, the individuals are considered “seized” if they are not free to leave at that time, or a reasonable person would not feel they are free to end the interaction with the police.
Custody, on the other hand is when an individual has been taken into custody such that a reasonable person would believe that they are going to jail and will not be allowed to freely leave. Any statements made before being in custody can be used freely against the individual because they are presumed to be made voluntarily.
Miranda Rights:
Once in custody, an officer may not interrogate an individual without giving him miranda warnings. This is to ensure that the government’s overarching coercive power does not overcome the individual to make an involuntary waiver or involuntary confession.
A waiver of miranda rights must be knowing and voluntary. Because of this, the supreme court has held that officers must give suspects Miranda warnings which inform the individual that he has a right to remain silent and that he has a right to an attorney.
These must be provided so that the individual can knowingly waive those rights. Without those rights, the individual cannot effectively waive miranda and their statements are not admissible against them.
However, even without a Miranda warning, an individual in custody may voluntarily speak and admit to crimes.
Right to Remain Silent:
To invoke the right to remain silent, an individual must unequivocally invoke the right to remain silent.
He must express that he wishes to remain silent to invoke that right.
Simply remaining silent will not invoke that right. Once the right is invoked, the police must scrupulously honor the request and not question him anymore.
If speaking after remaining silent, the statement is admissible.
Purpose of Miranda:
The purpose of miranda warnings is to allow suspects to know their rights to prevent the coercive power of the government from compelling them to talk.
If an individual does not know they are talking with a government actor, there is no inherent coercive pressure which could make the individual confess involuntarily.
Exclusionary Rule:
The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights in a criminal trial.
It prevents prosecutors from using evidence that was collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
An exception to the exclusionary rule: One of the exceptions to the exclusionary rule is that it is not triggered by a violation of the requirement to knock-and-announce.
Search - 4th Amendment
A search is unreasonable and in violation of the fourth amendment when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and where the government searches absent a warrant or an exception to the warrant requirement.
A valid search warrant must be granted by a neutral and detached magistrate, supported by an affidavit showing probable cause and which pleads in particularity in the place and persons to be searched as the items sought to be found.
Terry Frisk:
If an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person might be armed and dangerous, they may performed a brief pat-down of the outside of the person’s clothing in order to discover any weapons which may be concealed.
If, in the course of the pat-down, the officer’s discovers something they immediately recognize to be contraband, they may seize it under the “plain touch” doctrine.
However, for the “plain touch” doctrine to apply, the officer must immediately recognize from experience or awareness, that the item in the clothing is contraband or evidence of a crime. They not manipulate the item, or open any pockets or investigate further.
Plain View:
The plain view doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
When legally present in an area, an officer may seize anything which is in their plain
sight and is immediately apparent to them as contraband or evidence of a crime. The officers cannot manipulate the item in any way.
Double Jeopardy:
Under the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment, no citizen may be subject to double jeopardy for the same crime.
Double jeopardy attaches once a jury is sworn in a jury trial, or once a judge begins to hear witnesses in a bench trial.
Two crimes will constitute the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes unless both of the crimes require proof of an element which the other crimes does not.
Under the “separate sovereignty” doctrine, double jeopardy does not apply when the defendant is charged by two separate sovereigns, even when the charged crimes include the same elements.
The defendant may be subject to prosecution by separate sovereigns for the same offense or even after conviction for a lesser included offenses.
For purposes of double jeopardy, a city and the state in which that city is located are considered the same sovereign.
