Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Criminal Procedure Outline

Criminal Procedure Outline

Ratings: (0)|Views: 80 |Likes:
Published by Travis Dunsmoor

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Travis Dunsmoor on Dec 13, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Downloaded From OutlineDepot.comDownloaded From OutlineDepot.com
Criminal Procedure
– Governs searches and seizures.B.
 – Governs compelled or involuntary confessions and other fundamentally unfair procedures.C.
 – Governs an individuals right to counsel.D.
 – Governs the application of the bill of rights and of principlesof fundamental fairness to the States.
Chapter 2
 Basic Concepts – What is a “Search”? – 
 I.Katz v. United States
 A.The Fourth Amendment protects people – and not simply “areas” – against theunreasonable searches and seizures.
B.It becomes clear that the reach of the Fourth Amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.
1.(Subjective) Has person exhibited actual expectation of privacy?2.(Objective) Is the expectation of privacy reasonable?a.Normative Judgment – Based upon the language of 4
Amendmentand history of jurisprudence in the country.– 
Search Factors
– II.
(Most Important) – Reasonable expectation of privacyA.House – Expectation; Sacrosanct, will almost always be protected.B.Attached Garage/Deck/Garden – Expectation1.
 Part of the “curtilage” 
(anything that is attached to the house)C.Open Fields No ExpectationD.
Oliver v. United States
– No Expectation1.Upheld Hesters
“Open Fields Doctrine” patient 
a.Unoccupied and undeveloped open areas (even if enclosed and posted with ‘no trespassing’ signs) have no Fourth AmendmentProtection. b.By contrast, activities outside the home but on the “curtilage,”anareas adjacent to and intimately connected with the home, are protected.E.
United States v. Dunn
– No Expectation
1.Open Field vs. Curtilage Factors
a.Areas Proximity to the home; b.Areas ability to be distinct form the home;c.The use to which the area was made;
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.comDownloaded From OutlineDepot.com
d.Steps taken to prevent persons from observing what lay within thearea.
 III.Assumption of Ris
“False Friends Doctrine” 
– Whether an individual assumed the risk that certaininformation will not be kept private.1.
 Hoffa v. United States
– Neither this court nor any member of it has ever expressed the view that the Fourth Amendment protects a wrongdoer’smisplaced belief that a person to whom he voluntarily confides hiswrongdoing will not reveal it.2.
United States v. White
– The court distinguished from
becauseneither party to the telephone conversation in that case had been a willinggovernment informant; whereas here one party was a governmentinformant and thus consenting.B.
“Pen Registers” 
– Records the numbers dialed from a telephone.1.
Smith v. Maryland 
– Police use of a pen register is not a search, becauseindividuals using their telephones voluntarily convey “numericalinformation” to the telephone company and thus assume the risk that thecompany will reveal that information to the police.
C.Electronic Tracking Devices” 
United States v. Knotts
– Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police form augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon them at birthwith such enhancements as science and technology afforded them in thiscase.2.
United States v. Karo
– The beeper had been used to reveal activitiesinside a private residence, a location not open to visual surveillance; Thatuse invaded reasonable expectations of privacy, the beeper enabled the police to determine what they otherwise could not have known.
 D.Aerial Surveillance” 
California v. Ciraolo
– Even though the plants were growing within thecurtilage of Ciraolo’s home, the United States Supreme court found thatCiraolo had no reasonable expectation of privacy against the airborneobservations.2.
 Dow Chemical Co. v. United States
– Where there might be protectionfrom highly sophisticated surveillance equipment penetrating walls andwindows, there was not such protection from lawful surveys from the air that did not reveal intimate domestic affairs.
 E.Thermal Imaging Devices” 
 Kyllo v. United States
– The Supreme Court held that a search takes placewhen government agents employ a device that is not in general public usein order to explore details of a home that would previously have beenunknowable without physical intrusion.
F.Container Searches” 
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.comDownloaded From OutlineDepot.com
California v. Greenwood 
– Plastic garbage bags on a public street arereadily accessible to animals, children, scavengers, and snoops; thereforeGreenwood did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in baggedgarbage once it was outside the home and curtilage.2.
 Bond v. United States
– A border patrol agent did violate reasonableexpectations of privacy when he squeezed soft luggage that passengershad placed in the overhead space of a bus.IV.
 Property Interest 
– Relevant factor in the privacy analysis, but usually are notdispositive.A.
 Rawlings v. Kentucky
– The Court acknowledged that ownership was one fact to be considered but emphatically rejected the notion that arcane concepts of  property law ought to control the Fourth Amendment.B.Courts have declared that there is no search where police examine previously protected property in which an owner has voluntarily relinquished his or her  proprietary interest.
V.Social Custom
Minnesota v. Olson
– The Court held that Olson had a privacy interest in the premises because of his status as an overnight guest.B.
Minnesota v. Carter 
– The Court held that a cocaine dealer who spentapproximately two hours in the apartment of an acquaintance did not have areasonable expectation of privacy there.
VI.Past Practices & Expectations
O’Connor v. Ortega
– The Court reasoned that the expectation of privacy in one’s place of work has deep roots in the history of the 4
 Legality and Intimacy of Activities
– It makes a difference whether the individualsclaiming a privacy expectation were engaging in illegal or legal activities, and whether they are intimate or completely commercial.A.
United States v. Place
– Canine Sniff: The manner in which information isobtained is much less intrusive than a typical search; moreover the sniff disclosesonly the presence or absence of narcotics.VIII.
Vantage Point 
– Permits police to facilitate their observations from such
 public vantage points
by using enhancement devices (flashlights, for example).A.Those devices
must simply enable to see more clearly
something that they
could otherwise see
without the devices.B.Where the enhancement reveals what would
not otherwise be exposed 
to publicview, a reasonable privacy expectation exists.IX.
 Reduced Expectation of Privacy
– Signifies situations in which privacy interests arerelatively small compared to the State’s interest in obtaining the evidence.A.The Court has found privacy expectations to be reduced in vehicles, at least wherethey are parked in public places, partly because the interiors of passenger compartments can be easily observed from those outside the vehicle and partly because vehicles are heavily regulated.B.The Court also found privacy expectations to be reduced in school settings.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
akmusic liked this
akmusic liked this
akmusic liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->