MIDTERM Flashcards
What Special Circumstances (to search without a warrant)
Open fields
Abandoned Property
Border searches
Probation/Parole searches
Patriot Act searches (can be searched for no reason)
Unmanned drones
Arrest Warrants
Has the same construction as a search warrant
Issued based on probable cause
Officers may enter any location and search if “reasonably certain” fugitive is there
John Doe warrant (no name required, uses DNA profile, stops statute of limitations)
Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule: The Good Faith Exception
U.S vs. Leon
If officers believe the warrant is valid (or operating according to the law) and later discover a mistake was made-evidence still may be used in court
what is the background of U.S vs Leon? (1984)
Leon was the target of police surveillance via a tip, the police were granted a search warrant based on their surveillance evidence, and they found illegal drugs that violated federal laws. It was later concluded that there was not enough evidence for a warrant and thus did not establish probable cause for the search. therefore the evidence found could not be used at trial.
What did U.S vs Leon establish?
The case established the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Allowing evidence illegally seized based on mistakingly issued warrants that the police at the time believed were correct can still be used as evidence.
Miranda Rights
Must be issued upon arrest
The protection provided by :
5th amendment (self-crimination)
6th Amendment (legal representation)
Must be given to both adults and children
Miranda Warning
“Right to remain silent
Anything said used in court
Right to talk to a lawyer, one will be appointed “
If choose to talk, can be quiet at any time
(for underage) Do u wish to answer questions without parents, guardians, or custodians present?
Must be in a understandable language
Must be “Mentally capable” of understanding the consequences of consent/waiver
Background on Miranda v Arizona (1966)
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station for questioning about a connection to kidnapping and rape. After 2 hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The confession was admitted as evidence into the trial, and Miranda’s lawyer objected to the introduction of the evidence stating that Miranda was not advised of his right to have a lawyer present at his interrogation. The confession was still allowed to into the interrogation and the jury found him guilty.
Supreme Court Ruling of Miranda v Arizona
The court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that the defendant was required to be informed of their right to an attorney. After the warnings, a defendant can knowingly and intelligently waive the rights and ask questions or make statements.
Civil Courts
The victim is the individual
quantum of evidence:
“more likely guilty than not”
punishment: is a monetary amount
Age: none
level of knowledge: intentional/unintentional
Criminal Courts
The victim: society
quantum of evidence
“beyond a reasonable doubt”
Punishment: loss of liberty, life, money
age: mental maturation (CA 14 years)
seriousness: infraction, misdemeanor, felony
Kids/juvenile system
CA welfare and institutions code
601: status offense
602: delinquent offense
limited rights
whatever is in the best interest of the child
Requirements to prove a felony
actus reus: act or omission must be voluntary
mens rea: must have “guilty mind” or criminal intent
actus reus
act or omission must be voluntary
Mens rea
must have “guilty mind” or criminal intent