MEE - Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Flashcards
*Is a pre-textual traffic stop valid?
The Fourth Amendment, which is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , broadly prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. And under the SC’s exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of this constitutional provision usually may not be used in evidence against the person whose rights were violated.
What is required for a seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment depends on the circumstances. Sometimes reasonableness requires a warrant based on probable cause (reasonably trustworthy facts that would lead a prudent person to believe that a crime was committed); sometimes it is sufficient if an officer has reasonable suspicion (reason to believe that criminal activity is afoot on something less than probable cause but based on articulable facts). In any case, the SC cases make it clear that a police officer may stop a care if the officer has probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation. And a police officer may constitutionally arrest a person for a traffic violation. It does not matter that the police officer’s motive for a stop was to investigate something other than the traffic violation (that the traffic violation was a mere pretext for the stop).
*What are the exceptions to a warrantless search and seizure?
The fourth Amendment requires searches to be reasonable, and to be reasonable searches often must be pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause that evidence will be found in the place searched. However, there are a number of exceptions to the warrant exception.
A police officer may make a warrantless seizure of evidence if the officer is in a place that he is lawfully is allowed to be and sees in plain view items that he has immediate probable cause to believe are contraband or evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime.
SC cases make it clear that if a police officer has probable cause to believe that an automobile contains seizable items, the officer may search the automobile without a warrant under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.
*When must Miranda warnings be provided?
The SC has held that in order to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, which also is applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a person in police custody must be given certain warnings (the Miranda warnings) before a police officer may conduct a custodial interrogation.
Any statement, question, or conduct by the police designed to elicit an incriminating response will be considered interrogation.
A person will be considered in custody if their freedom of action is limited in a significant way. The more the situation resembles a traditional arrest, the more likely custody will be found.
*How long must officers wait before interrogating a suspect again after the suspect requests assistance of counsel?
The prohibition against questioning a detainee after he requests an attorney last the entire time the detainee is in custody for interrogation purposes, plus 14 more days after the detainee returns to his normal life. After that point, the detainee can be questioned regarding the same matter upon receiving a fresh set of Miranda warnings.
*What is the exclusionary rule?
Under the SC’s exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights generally will be excluded from admission into evidence at trial.
And under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the exclusionary effect is applied not only to the unconstitutionality obtained evidence, but also to evidence derived from the unconstitutionality obtained evidence. However, this rule does not always apply to Miranda violations. The SC has indicated that if police obtain an unwarned confession from a suspect, warn the suspect, and then requesition the suspect in a question first, warn later scheme to get around the Miranda requirements, confessions obtained during both interrogations should be suppressed. But if the unwarned questioning and the warned questioning do not appear to be part of such a scheme, incriminating statements obtained during the warned questioning session need not be suppressed.
*What is the attenuation doctrine?
If the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstance, so that the causal link between the police misconduct and the evidence is broken, the evidence will not be suppressed. In such a case, suppression would not serve the purpose of deterring future misconduct and so the evidence is admissible under the “attenuation exception” to the exclusionary rule. The court will consider: (1) the temporal proximity between the unconstitutional conduct and the discovery of evidence (the closer the temporal proximity, the less likely the exception applies); (2) the presence of intervening circumstances; and (3) most importantly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.
*What is the fifth amendment right to counsel?
The fifth amendment, applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, provides that no person may be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony.
The SC has held that to protect this privilege against self-incrimination, a person in police custody must be given the miranda warnings before a police officer may conduct a custodial interrogation. At any time prior to or during interrogation, the detainee may invoke a miranda right to counsel. If the detainee invokes this right, all questioning must cease until the detainee is provided with an attorney or initiates further questioning himself. The request for an attorney must be unambiguous and must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer in the same situation would understand the statement to be a request for counsel. ‘
Moreover, the police have no duty to seek clarification of an ambiguous request.
*What is the Mens Rea requirement for Involuntary Manslaughter?
A person commits involuntary manslaughter when he causes a death by criminal negligence.
A person has a mens rea of criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and this failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same situation.
Alternatively, some states use a recklessness standard for involuntary manslaughter and require that the person consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
*What causation requirements are necessary for murder?
A defendant must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of death. A defendant’s conduct is the cause-in-fact of death if the death would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct.
A defendant is the proximate cause of death if the death was the natural and probable consequence of his conduct, even if he did not anticipate the precise manner in which it would occur.
An intervening act can shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s act. In such a case, the intervening act will then be deemed to be the actual, proximate cause of the victim’s death.
- What are the requirements for accomplice liability?
An accomplice is a person who (1) with the intent to assist the principal and the intent that the principal commit the crime, (2) actually aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.
When the substantive offense has recklessness or negligence as its mens rea, most jurisdictions hold that the intent element is satisfied if the accomplice (1) intended to facilitate the commission of the crime, and (2) acted with recklessness or negligence (whichever is required)
*What is the mens rea for second degree murder in a jurisdiction that imposes a recklessness standard?
In such a jurisdiction, second degree murder is a killing done with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life.
*What are the different standards of a defense of Insanity?
M’Naghten: Due to a mental disease or defect, at the time of the offense D lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his conduct or understand the nature and quality of his act.
Irresistible Impulse: Due to mental illness, D was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law.
MPC (Combo of above): As a result of D’s mental disease, D lacked the capacity to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Durham: But for his mental illness, D would not have acted
*What is Felony Murder?
A killing that occurs during the attempt or commission of certain enumerated felonies. The intent to commit felony murder is the intent necessary to commit the underlying felony. BARRK (Burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping). Statutory felonies that state that a killing occurred during its commission would also result in felony murder.
The offense must be independent of the killing, foreseeable, and caused by D before D reaches a place of temporary felon. Generally not liable for killings of a co-felon by policy or original victim.
*What is the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel?
The sixth amendment, which applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment, provides that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel during all critical stages of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. The right is also offense specific; if a defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel has attached regarding on charge, he may be questioned without counsel concerning an unrelated charge. In addition, police officers’ failure to inform a suspect that his lawyer is attempting to see him does not violate the sixth amendment, except with regard to charges for which judicial proceedings have commenced.
*Does a guest have a reasonable expectation of privacy against a seizure of personal property while at another person’s house?
The fourth amendment to the United States constitution provides that people are to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Generally to be reasonable, a search or seizure must be pursuant to a warrant, although there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. However, in any case, before a person may claim that evidence was seized in an unconstitutional manner, he must show that he has standing - i.e., that his own constitutional rights were violated. To have standing, a person must show that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated. Such an expectation arises when the place searched ia person’s home, or even if the person was an overnight guest in a home searched.
