Police Handbook 2015 Flashcards
__1__ Amendment: protection against illegal searches and seizures.
- Fourth Amendment
__1__ Amendment: right against self-incrimination; due process under the law; protection against double jeopardy
- Fifth Amendment
__1__ Amendment: the right to a trial by an impartial jury; confrontation of witnesses; the right to counsel.
- Sixth Amendment
__1__ Amendment: right to be free or cruel and unusual punishment.
- Eighth Amendment
__1__- police are not required to obtain a warrant to effect a search of automobiles and other moving vehicles when they have probable cause that a crime is being committed, since the time required in obtaining a search would permit the mobile evidence to be lost or destroyed
- Carroll v. United States (1925)
__1__- the exclusionary rule for illegal searches and seizures applies in the states
- Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
__1__- the state must provide an attorney to indigent defendants whenever there is the possibility of imprisonment.
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
__1__- illegally obtained derivative evidence (“fruit of the poisonous tree”) can be purged through voluntary conduct, such as a voluntary confession given after an improperly obtained confession.
- Wong Sun v. United States (1963)
__1__- the right to counsel is activated at all critical stages of an adversarial proceeding. Cf. Gilbert v. California.
- Massiah v. United States (1964)
__1__- (Warren, J.) police must read defendants the four warnings in interrogations of defendants in police custody. Otherwise, confessions are to be excluded.
- Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
__1__- the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of an adversarial proceeding. Signature analyses are not critical stages, since the presence of an attorney would not in any way protect the defendant.
- Gilbert v. California (1967)
__1__- post-indictment police lineups are critical stages for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel.
- United States v. Wade (1967)
__1__- when pursuing a dangerous suspect and time is of the essence, police may conduct warrantless searches. The following elements must be met; (i) there is probable cause (always necessary for searches and seizures), (ii) under exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search, (iii) the pursuit begins from a place where the police have a lawful right to be, and (iv) the legal violation is serious enough to justify a warrantless search.
- Warden v. Hayden (1967)
__1__- police do not need probable cause in order to effect a frisk of a defendant’s body in order to assure officer safety. If police, while conducting a frisk, develop independent probable cause that a crime is being committed or that the defendant is in possession of contraband, they may search for and seize the contraband without a warrant. A police stop does not require probable cause, but rather, a reasonable and articulate suspicion that a crime is being committed.
- Terry v. Ohio (1968)
__1__- police need neither a warrant nor probable cause in order to effect a search of a defendant’s wingspan (the area within the immediate control (the area within his immediate control) in order to assure officer protection (search incident to lawful arrest exception to the need for a warrant).
- Chimel v. California (1969)
__1__- once police have seized a vehicle, they are not required to obtain a search warrant. They may search it as they would have at the time it was stopped. Rationale: (i) cars and other mobile vehicles were primarily means of transportation; (ii) they are driven in plain view; (iii) they are subject to heavy regulation.
- Chambers v. Maroney (1970)
__1__- when the incriminating nature of evidence is immediately apparent to police while they are in a place where they have a lawful right to be, they may seize it under the plain view doctrine.
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire
__1__- the state must provide an attorney to indigent defendants whenever imprisonment is imposed, for any offense, whether it is a felony, misdemeanor, or petty.
- Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
__1__- there is no right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment during a pre-indictment police lineup, since adversarial proceedings have not yet begun.
- Kirby v. Illinois (1972)
__1__- photographic lineups are not critical stages for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment Right and do not require the right of counsel.
- United States v. Ash (1973)
__1__- a person who is arrested without a warrant is entitled to a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to arrest him.
- Gerstein v. Pugh (1975)
__1__- if police read a defendant his Miranda Rights and the defendant refuses to speak, the police may return to the defendant and interrogate him afresh without reading the Miranda rights, provided it is done within a reasonable period of time.
- Michigan v. Mosley (1975)
__1__- police must first apply for a search warrant for small closed objects seized from a car before opening them. Since police may seize the objects before applying for a search warrant, the exigent circumstances inherent in mobile automobiles does not apply.
- United States v. Chadwick (1977)
__1__- when evidence is firmly rooted in exceptions at the time of ratification of the Constitution, it bears an adequate indicia of reliability and is not to be excluded by the Confrontation Clause. In dicta: the Confrontation Clause and the Federal Rules if Evidence are largely congruent: testimony that satisfies the rules of evidence is admissible under the Confrontation Clause.
- Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
__1__- courts are not required to suppress statements volunteered to the police or that are not responsive to a question, even when the Miranda rights are not read.
- Rhode Island v. Innis
__1__- when police have probable cause, they may search the entire vehicle until they find the object of the probable cause.
- United States v. Ross (1982)
__1__- evidence obtained through an illegal confession is not to be excluded when it would have been inevitably discovered.
- Nix v. Williams (1984)
__1__- a person is in police custody when he believes that he is not free to leave from the perspective of the reasonable person (objective) in his situation (subjective).
- Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
__1__- although probable cause is generally required for all Fourth Amendment searches and seizures, it is not required for Border Searches.
- United States v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985)
__1__- (Rehnquist, C.J.) since the states and Congress have not come up with an adequate alternative to Miranda, the Miranda rule is Constitutional.
- United States v. Dickerson (2000)
__1__- statements offered in court must be testimonial in order to trigger the Confrontation Clause protections.
- Crawford v. Washington (2004)
__1__- Amendment; (__2__)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violate, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- Fourth Amendment
2. Searches and Seizures
__1__- Amendment (__2__)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
- Fifth Amendment
2. Grand Jury; Double Jeopardy; Self-Incrimination; Due Process
__1__-Amendment (__2__)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
- Eight Amendment
2. Excessive Bail or Fines; Cruel and Unusual Punishments
__1__-Amendment (__2__)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within the jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.
- Fourteenth Amendment
2. Citizenship Rights
The __1__ requires a court to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. __2___ v. __2__ (U.S. __3__) (the landmark __4__ case)
- Exclusionary Rule
- Boyd v. United States
- 1886
- Exclusionary Rule
The __1__ was not incorporated against the states until __2__ v. __2__ (U.S. __3__) (Clark, J.) where the police entered the defendant’s home without a search warrant and found obscene materials that they used to convict her.
- Exclusionary Rule
- Mapp v. Ohio
- 1961
The court has been limiting the __1__ of the __2__. holding that it acts to exclude evidence obtained through __3__. not through the errors of others (e.g. a magistrate who erroneously grants a warrant). __4__ v. __4__ (U.S. __5__) (White, J.).
- Scope
- Exclusionary Rule
- Police Misconduct Only
- U.S. v. Leon
- 1984
Excluding evidence when another __1__ errs will not have a __2__ effect on the police. __3__ v. __3__ (U.S. __4__) (White, J.).
- Party
- Deterrent
- U.S. v. Leon
- 1984
The “__1__” exception to the __2__ allows evidence to be admitted when the __3__, acting with __4__, reasonably rely on the __5__ of a warrant, even if the warrant is __6__.
- Good Faith
- Exclusionary Rule
- Police
- Good Faith
- Validity
- Invalid
The __1__ Amendment is designed to protect citizens from __2__ __3__ searches. Thus, information obtained by a search conducted by a __4__ or __5__ person is __6__ and does not need to be __7__ when used by the government for prosecution (unless the person conducting the search is an __8__ of the __9__).
- Fourth
- Illegal
- Government
- Private
- Corporate
- Admissible
- Excluded
- Agent
- Government
In __1__ v. __1__ (__2__), the Drug Enforcement Agency was permitted to use evidence obtained from FedEx, which broke open packages to be mailed, discovered cocaine, and turned them over to the government.
- Jacobsen v. United States
2. 1984
In __1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Powell, J.), the Court limited the application of the __3__ so as not to “seriously __4__ the grand jury.”
__5__ obtained evidence is thus __6__ in grand jury proceedings.
- United States v. Calandra
- 1974
- Exclusionary Rule
- Impede
- Illegally
- Admissible
The __1__ applies only to __2__ cases. In __3__ cases, the __4__ does not apply because no liberty interest jeopardized.
- Exclusionary Rule
- Criminal
- Civil
- Exclusionary Rule
Searches from the outside of a person’s home using __1__ devices that are outside of __2__ __3__ use are presumed to be __4__ searches requiring a __5__ under the __6__ Amendment.
- Technological
- Ordinary
- Public
- Unreasonable
- Warrant
- Fourth
__1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Scalia, J.) where the Court excluded evidence obtained with a thermal imaging device from a helicopter that showed that the defendant had been using heat lamps for growing marijuana plants in his home. Because the apparatus was no within the ordinary public use, the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was violated.
- Kyllo v. United States
2. 2001
This rule does not apply to __1__.
__2__ v. __2__ (U.S. __3__) (Stevens, J.), where a __4__ __4__ __5__ drugs in the trunk of the defendant, who was stopped by a trooper.
- Drug-sniffing Canine
- Illinois v. Caballes
- 2005
- Narcotics Dog
- Sniffed
“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” and Purging the Taint
When police effect an illegal search or seizure, both illegally obtained primary evidence as well as all derivative evidence. including verbal statements, is to be excluded at trial as “__1__ __1__ __1__ __1__ __1__ __1__” __2__ v. __2__ (U.S. __3__) (Brennan, J.)
- Tainted Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
- Wong Sun v. United States
- 1963
Purging the Taint, “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
The Taint may be purged through the following;
1.
2.
- Inevitable Discovery
2. Intervening Voluntary Conduct
__1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Warren Burger, C.J.) where a suspect was arrested by police when a 10 year old girl went missing. Police elicited a confession from the suspect, however the evidence was not excluded. since it was going to be inevitably discovered by independent sources in a matter of time.
- Nix v. Williams
2. 1984
__1__ __1__ __1__, such as a voluntary. subsequent confession by the defendant, purges the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Intervening voluntary conduct
__1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Brennan, J.) where an unlawful arrest resulted in both a confession (primary evidence) and a witness lead (derivative evidence). The Court excluded both. Held: since the heroin would not have been seized but for the unlawful questioning of Toy, it is excluded. However, __3__’s testimony is admissible because it has no connection to the arrest. Rather, it was voluntary made.
- Wong Sun v. United States
- 1963
- Sun
If a party is unlawfully arrested and detained, the testimony obtained is automatically inadmissible if the party’s __1__ __1__ are not read.
- Miranda rights
Yet reading __1__ __1__ on its own is not sufficient to make the confession __2__. Under __3__ v. __3__ (U.S. __4__) (Blackmun, J.), the following factors are to be considered when determining whether the confession is admissible;
5.
6.
7.
__8__ hours is too little time to purge the taint of the confession. __9__ v. __9__ (U.S. 1982) (Marshall, J.)
- Miranda Rights
- Admissible
- Brown v. Illinois
- 1975
- The presence of intervening events
- The flagrancy of the police misconduct
- The amount of time elapsed between the illegal act and the confession.
- Six Hours
- Taylor v. Alabama
Yet reading __1__ __1__ on its own is not sufficient to make the confession __2__. Under __3__ v. __3__ (U.S. __4__) (Blackmun, J.), the following factors are to be considered when determining whether the confession is admissible;
5.
6.
7.
__8__ hours is too little time to purge the taint of the confession. __9__ v. __9__ (U.S. 1982) (Marshall, J.)
- Miranda Rights
- Admissible
- Brown v. Illinois
- 1975
- The presence of intervening events
- The flagrancy of the police misconduct
- The amount of time elapsed between the illegal act and the confession.
- Six Hours
- Taylor v. Alabama
The Court affirmed __1__ v. __1__ in __2__ v. __2__ (U.S. __3__) (Brennan, J.). Because the confession could not be separated from the initial illegality, it was __4__.
- Brown v. Illinois
- Dunaway v. New York
- 1979
- Excluded
__1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) established a two-prong test for a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Katz v. United States
2. 1967
The reasonable expectation of privacy standard involves a two-prong test;
1.
2.
- Does the defendant assert a subjective interest in privacy?
- If so, is society prepared to accept that a subjective privacy expectation as an area that is private?
The new test is whether the defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy based on __1__ v. __1__ (U.S. 1967). The defendant has the __2__ of establishing __3__ __3__.
- Katz v. United States
- Burden
- Both Prongs
Individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their __1__. This privacy expectation encompasses the __2__- the dwelling and all the buildings and property immediately surrounding it. (__3__ v. __3__)(U.S. __4__).
- Homes
- Curtilage
- Oliver v. United States
- 1984
An arrest occurs when a person is taken into __1__ for the purpose of a __2__ __2__. __3__ v. __3__ (U.S. __4__).
- Custody
- Criminal Action
- Dunaway v. New York
- 1979
Under __1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Douglas, J.). it is more precisely the __3__ 3 __3__ of citizens by the __4__.
- Henry v. United States
- 1959
- Restriction of Movement
- Police
In __1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Scalia, J.), the Court modified the definition pronounced in Henry: one is __3__ if his movement is restricted when he;
4.
5.
6.
- California v. Hodari, D.
- 1991
- Arrested
- Is touched
- Is taken into the physical custody of the officer
- Submits to the authority of the officer
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures must be __1__. An __2__, which is a “__3__” of a person, must fall into one of the following categories to be reasonable;
4.
5.
- Reasonable
- Arrest
- Seizure
- Made with an Arrest warrant (which is based on probable cause);
- Based on Probable Cause to arrest (this is based on an objective standard)
Arrest Warrant
Absent __1__ __1__, police must have a __2__ to enter a defendant’s home to arrest him. __3__ v. __3__ (U.S. __4__) (Stevens, J.)
- Exigent Circumstances
- Warrant
- Payton v. New York
- 1980
Once an __1__ __1__ is issued, police have the implicit right to enter into the defendant’s home to search for hi,.
- Arrest Warrant
However, police with an __1__ __1__ do not have the implicit right to enter the home of __2__ __2__ to search for the defendant identified on the __3__. __4__ v. __4__ (U.S. __5__) (Marshall).
- Arrest Warrant
- Third Parties
- Warrant
- Steagald v. United States
- 1981
Arrest Warrants require; 1. 2. 3. 4.
- Probable Cause
- Support by oath or affirmation
- A description with particularity of the person to be arrested; and
- Issuance by a neutral and detached magistrate
__1__ __1__ exists if, based on the __2__ presented to the magistrate. a __3__ person would conclude that more __4__ than not, contraband or other evidence will be at the place to be __5__ at the time the __6__ is executed.
- Probable Cause
- Facts
- Reasonable
- Likely
- Searched
- Warrant
(Search warrants) may be served at a __1__ time, __2__ warrants are constitutional.
- Future
2. Anticipatory
__1__ v. __1__ (U.S. __2__) (Scalia, J.), where a magistrate issued an __3__ warrant to police who sought to intercept child pornography at a future delivery that, according to their sources. was to occur.
- United States v. Grubbs
- 2006
- Anticipatory
Probable cause dissipates when the facts presented to the magistrate are too __1__ 1 __1__.
- Too remote in time
The Fourth Amendment requires the warrant to be “__1__ 1 __1__ 1 __1__”.
- Supported by Oath and Affirmation
