This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
• • • • 4th amendment protects against intrusion of our privacy and possessory interest in our stuff o only triggered when there is a search or seizure 5th protects the fairness of a criminal trial o Coerce confession is unreliable evidence Miranda protects against forced self incrimination’ o Gives right to attorney during custodial interrogation o Protect is to make sure that waiver of right to remain silent is not coerce 6th amendment is constitutional goes to protect rights in criminal trial o Miasiah states that rights goes to pre trial procedures after charged
Exclusionary rule: applies to both state and federal cases. Threshold question of when is there a search. • Katz test: subjective and objective expectation of privacy o Test revolves around the objective expectation of privacy o No bright line rule o Katz court said that when in an enclosed phone both where there is reasonable believe privacy then it is a search o False friends theory eliminates the search requirement. • Smith pin register case o Court said not a search because people generally believe that other people would have access to the numbers you called • Oliver (open fields beyond curtilage) o Court said if you fence • Ceralo o No privacy form jets flying above backyard • Trash is not a search (Greenwood) • Bond case o Court held that patting outside of suitcase is a search
• • Standing is only available if you have a reasonable expectation of privacy of the area that was search. Overnight guest have standing (Olsen)
P/C = Gates test • Would reasonable officer in same situation believe they have reason for search.
but turns out to be invalid (because no probable cause or particularity) o PO had to act in good faith o Magistrate acted in a neutral way o Police officer should have known that it was invalid Search Warrant Exceptions • SILA: o Have to have a valid arrest.see handout o Knock-and-announce. can search anywhere a weapon or evidence could be. PO has to have an arrest warrant and belief that person is home • Warrant to search o Need one to search a private place o Steagald. POs made effort to find right apartment o Anticipatory warrants are okay in drug cases • Reasonably executed. Garrison.PO had an arrest warrant for Lyons at Steagald’s home and found drugs they wanted to use against Steagald.PO doesn’t have to if has RS that it would be dangerous Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule • NOT an exception to the warrant requirement • Police have warrant. PO can look on arrestee’s person and in grabbing area and after Buie. WARRANT REQUIREMENT 4th Am does not require warrants Warrants for seizure: • Arrest o Don’t need one in a public place for a felony or when a crime is committed in front of the officer o Do need one in a private place or a past misdemeanor o Overnight guest has standing in a home • Standing: use Rakas test o To arrest in a home.• Delaware v.SILA. If person has recently been in a car. in the same area as the arrest where a person could be hiding. is it valid? • Has to be based on PC • Has to be reasonably particular as to the place to be searched and the items to be seized (including time). Court said warrant was particular. . Franks : items on warrant are partically false then take away bad facts and look at remainding facts for P/C for warrant. Marilyn v.two apartments. Court said the have to have a warrant for Steagald (home owner’s privacy interest) Have a warrant.
we allow POs to do this for convenience Hicks. Can frisk house (not SILA). then anything he sees in plain view he can seize without getting a warrant to seize. would reasonably think the 3rd party has actual authority • • Plain view and Plain feel o Relates to seizure If an officer is lawfully present in a place and looks around.Police go in lawfully because of exigency and seize a stereo (wasn’t immediately apparent without a further search) o Plain feel. it can give you more PC to keep looking o Lower expectation of privacy in cars Wyoming v. then you can seize it (but have to get search warrant to search it).but not once it is put in the car (cars are highly regulated) . Holton. searched passenger’s purse and found drugs. escape of the arrestee) and don’t have time to get a warrant Consent : o Exception to search warrant requirement and PC requirement Is it valid (Voluntary) TOC PO doesn’t have to tell suspect they can refuse Scope of consent to search • Not sure about opening locked containers rd 3 party consent : o Gov’t has to show apparent authority not actual authority. locked glove compartment. can’t look in glove compartment If you find something. Whether a reasonable officer.Acevedo If looking for a rifle.car case.if a PO feels something that is immediately apparent to be contraband and can take it out and seize it (no additional manipulation) Vehicles and Containers o You can search a vehicle if you have PC to search it. PO had PC to believe there were drugs.Don’t know about hatchbacks. Court said ok If you have a container and it is outside the car. if PO believe there is another person that could harm them in the home • Exigent Circumstances: o Requires PC of the particular exigency (destruction of evidence. knowing the information.
• • . RS is less than PC but more than a hunch o White was barely enough for RS o Wardlow. they held the guy for 45 minutes until first officer got back. showing and scope TERRY • REVIEW A stop is a kind of seizure o Dunaway. Place.if transport suspect any distance or hold for too long.not reasonable in Place. SC said if not for the guy alluding the PO there wouldn’t be a need to wait so 45 minutes was okay and not an arrest. o US v.if have reasonable belief that there is someone in the house they can frisk it for people – protective sweep needs R/S Can frisk the immediate and adjoining area of arrest for people who can launch an attack.If PO have reason to believe there is a weapon in the car then they can frisk car o Buie.Inventories o Like consent in that there is no PC requirement o Allowed to protect person’s property Have to have established procedures Police have to follow those procedures o Can’t be investigatory o Inventories of a person Have to have a valid arrest and PO reasonably believe that person will be incarcerated and established procedures To protect property and other people in the prison o Strip search.PO trailing an individual.if person is to be incarcerated overnight then okay. that’s just a hunt. another car picks up the trail. but not misdemeanor Ask the three questions: Rationale.simply a tip saying there would be a person somewhere carrying a gun is not RS. had prior notice to get dogs Terry stop and frisk takes us to… o Long. then it is an arrest o Sharpe. but lost him. no corroboration of future events.running at the sight of the police is relevant to RS o JL. they have RS but no PC.
okay to do Suspicionless drug tests of high school athletes . P/C • P/C is about 50% certain that person is guilty • R/S is less then P/C • Below a magic line is insufficient showing Magic line . minimally intrusive Edmond. not lawful because using it as investigatory. Arrest R/S v. no compelling public safety reason Vernonia .fixed immigration checkpoints okay o Sitz. have to do balancingparticular need for the evidence vs.Police can stop and detain a resident of a home with no RS when executing a search warrant Open question.not a fixed checkpoint.students have lower expectation in schools • Probable cause plus (PC+) cases o PC plus balancing o If want to conduct surgery on a suspect. SC said suspicionless seizure ok o Compelling public interest. DUI. suspect’s safety o If police want to use deadly force it has to necessary and there had to be showing that suspect is dangerous and officer has to warn if possible MORE ON TERRY When are we in the terry category? Stop • • • Free to leave Free to terminate encounter Flight is not seizure 100% certain for conviction 50% P/C R/S is less then P/C No seizure v. Mere terry stop v. can police detain non-residents? And would Summers apply to searches that are not with a search warrant or for contraband? • Checkpoint cases o Martinez-Fuerte.said not okay to do Suspicionless searches of politicians TLO.Police have a fixed checkpoint for drug interdiction.PO executing a search warrant at a bar and seized all the patrons of the barSC said not reasonable to assume everyone in the bar poses a risk to the officers Summers.Balancing cases Ybarra.
MIRANDA Threshold questions: 1. • All four warnings are required but not in the exact words • If ∆ speaks after warning. Does exception applies to danger to the officers / suspects . The role of an attorney during interrogation is to be an ally to the defendant. statements are admissible if gov can prove valid waiver. In balancing the interest we look for the R/S to determine whose interest is more important. • Due process does not protect against the gov’s ability to force someone to speak. • Miranda protects the right to remain silent. Was suspect in custody? 2. The next two cases goes into the are where the government has to show more than P/C. US) • Routine booking questions • Testimony under immunity (Kastigar) o Derivate o Transactional Can never be charged for the action o Use Can be charged but cannot use the immunized testimony in trial against person testifying • Custodial interrogations are inherently coercive. Things not incriminating: • Act of producing documents (Doe v. The psychological coercion is hard to prove thus court requires a warning to protect against coercion.Special Needs cases: • Skinner : testing public employees for drugs The government uses the terry-balancing test to justify many of its action that are out side the stop and frisks issues. • Exceptions to Miranda o Public safety allows for the not giving of Miranda warning We don’t know if we can interrogate for purposes of public safety after ∆ asserts right to counsel. Was there an interrogation? Both are needed for Miranda to apply The assumption is that all custodial interrogation is coercive.
Due Process review • • • • • • • Do not want confession obtained through coercion Brown v. Express waiver is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient. confession is still admissible if there is no police coercion. Waiver needs to be o Knowing Means that you know your rights o Intelligent o Voluntary Spcuprarily honored the right to silent Edwards rule means that police cannot re .interrogate after Miranda only applies to testimonial evidence • • • . INTERROGATION • • • Test: was there enough activity to function as an equivalent to interrogation. You can be stopped for terry stops but not be in custody where you would need to be mirandized. This is not the same as a terry stop. Don’t use 4th amendment seizure analysis for 5th amendment custody analysis for Miranda rights. CUSTODY How to figure out if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes: if a reasonable person feels that they are in custody. Ashcraft states that 36 hours of interrogation is too long. Spano : use of friend to use psychological and emotional coercion is not allowed. Fulminante : implicit threat of physical force is illegal o Rule: even if confession is coerced it can still be admissible under harmless error Current issue: in Supreme Court can police interrogate on issues of uncharged crime. Conoley : even unreliable. Mississippi states that due process clause protection against coerced confession applies to states for the first time Question on voluntariness. Colorado v.• • • • Issue : when reasonable person believe that liberty is restrained and is in custody Traffic stops are not custodial because it is short duration and in public area Not every 4th amendment seizure amounts to 5th amendment custody issues If ∆ is called by police and voluntary appears at station for questioning does not make it a custodial environment according to the court.
• • .• 5th amend can be waived under the immunity offer where your right will be stripped. 6 TH AMENDMENT • Massiah states that the critical part for right to counsel starts at the postcharge stage. o No interrogation unless defendant re-initiates and waives rights o Undercover agents are in violation of 6th because person doesn’t even know that he has that right because he doesn’t know that he is dealing with government agent. ones in which ∆ has already been charged. o Applies to interrogation of issues already charged Test : deliberately elicit incriminating statements / confession When can police interrogate about related crimes.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.