This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PROFESSOR FULCHER SPRING 2011
APPLICABLE AMENDMENTS FOR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (*focus in class) Fourth Amendment “To be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….” Requires a warrant based upon probable cause for a search or arrest Unreasonable searches and seizures Limitations on government actions Reasonable versus probable cause
Fifth Amendment Sets for the right: In federal cases to indictment by a grand jury Against double jeopardy Privilege against self-incrimination* Due process in criminal cases* Six Amendment Guarantees a defendant: The right to a speedy and public jury trial Be given an opportunity to confront witnesses against him and to call his own witnesses The right to assistance of counsel* Eighth Amendment Prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
THEMES IN CONSTITUTIONAL CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. Controlling Discretion a. The police make many discretionary decisions including whom to investigate and where to direct their limited resources. b. Prosecutors too have discretion in deciding whom to charge with what, home much bail to seek, etc. c. Defense counsel have discretion in making certain decisions that may affect the quality of justice
2. Criminal Procedure as Evidence Law a. The remedy for many constitutional violations is exclusion of the evidence at trial. b. In deciding whether the legal requirements for exclusion of evidence have been met, the trial court must often find certain preliminary facts, facts that usually go to the trustworthiness of the evidence, as is true under evidence law. 3. Race and Ethnicity of Suspects 4. Role of the Lawyer
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com 5. Social Science and Other Disciplines
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES W HAT IS A SEARCH? Katz v. United States Fourth Amendment Limits the government’s ability to invade a person’s individual affairs Court said: Privacy is not contemporaneous with property Protects people (not places) Physical penetration is not necessary for a privacy invasion Police must obtain a warrant before search takes place Judge is impartial (balances police motivation) Test: did the Individual have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz Test) 1) A person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy 2) The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable Katz Test Under a 4 amendment a search is any police conduct that intrudes upon a person “reasonable expectation of privacy” The 4 amendment protect people and not places No physical penetration of the area is necessary for a privacy invasion Probable cause should meet the warrant requirement
To determine the existence of a search 1. Location – the setting in which the government action took place is the most important factor in determining whether the police action constituted a search 2. Assumption of Risk
Location Home Curtilage Open Fields Public
Assumption of the Risk An individual “assumed the risk” that certain information will not be kept private. Agents and Informants Pen registers and Pagers
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Electronic Tracking Devices Aerial Surveillance Thermal Imaging Devices Container Searches LOCATION OPEN FIELDS V. CURTILAGE Open fields – unoccupied and undeveloped open areas, even if enclosed and posted with “no trespassing” signs. Curtilage – an area adjacent to and intimately connected with the home
Oliver v. United States Open Field Doctrine Permits police officers to enter and search a open field without a warrant Court said: Curtilage and home are protected Open fields and public areas are not protected
United States v. Dunn Curtilage isthe area immediately surrounding the home Court said: Consider four factors (determining open field or curtilage) 1. The proximity of the area searched to residence(home) 2. Structures that make this area distinct 3. Use of area – any activities associated with the use of private daily lives 4. Attempt of Privacy: The steps taken to protect the area from observation
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
Assumption of risk usually requires a decision to engage in conduct despite conscious awareness of the risks. The Court’s notion of assumption of risk must extend beyond actual awareness rather, the doctrine includes as well those risks of which the Court concludes the suspect should have been aware – an objective(probably normative) inquiry.
Both objective and subjective tests: o o Subjective test – conscious awareness of the risk Objective – they should have been aware of the risk - assumed the risk
AGENTS AND INFORMANTS (FALSE FRIENDS) Hoffa v. United States
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Hoffa discussed bribing Test Fleet jury members with Partin; Partin reported these conversations to a federal agent; Hoffa was arrested, charged, and convicted for endeavoring to bribe the Test Fleet jurors Court said: The petitioner was not relying on the security of the hotel room, he was relying upon his misplaced confidence that Partin would not reveal his wrongdoing No expectation of privacy Had expectation of privacy, but then assumed the risk by telling informant friend info Lopez v. United States Government agent; wore pocket wire recorder Court said: The government did not use an electronic device to listen in on conversations it could not otherwise have heard. “The risk of being overhead by an eavesdropper or betrayed by an informer or deceived as to the identity of one with whom one deals is probably inherent in the condition of human society. It is the kind of risk we necessarily assume whenever we speak.” Lewis v. United States Undercover drug purchase in defendant’s home Court said: Where the home was converted into a commercial center in which outsiders were invited in for business, it had no greater sanctity than a store, garage, or street United States v. White Government wired informant; radio transmitter; government agents listened Court said: One contemplating illegal activities must realize that his companions may be reporting to the police
PEN REGISTERS AND PAGERS Smith v. Maryland o The Court held that police use of a pen register is not a search because individuals using their telephones voluntarily convey numerical information to the telephone company and thus assume the risk that the company will reveal that information to the police. o
A pen register records the numbers dialed from a telephone.
The numbers dialed are not protect BUT the content of the conversations would constitute violation of the 4 amendment.
ELECTRONIC TRACKING DEVICES United States v. Knotts Electronic Tracking Devices
Ten-foot fence was placed to conceal the marijuana crop from at least street-level views 5 th .e. etc. followed car with container. identified robber as obscene caller Court said: A person has no expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties No search No expectation of privacy Exposed to public (i. private plane. 1000 feet.com Beeper inside five gallon container. That use invaded reasonable expectations of privacy. Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances Search Expectation of privacy Monitoring inside private place .everyone can observe you United States v. The beeper had been used to reveal activities inside a private residence.No expectation of privacy In public . a location not open for visual surveillance. installed pen register. followed signal to storage facilities. visual surveillance and signal monitor Court said: A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another No search . Karo Beeper in container. Ciraolo Backyard (ten foot fence). bank record. observed using closed-circuit video cameras Court said: the government’s use of a beeper as intruding too far into privacy interest. received obscene phone calls.learning details about inside that otherwise is unknown Smith v. the Court found no violation of 4 amendment rights in the installation of the beeper because the defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the can while it belong to the DEA. curtilage.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. He monitoring constituted a search However.) AERIAL SEARCHES California v. public navigable airspace. numbers dialed. Maryland Woman robbed. identified marijuana → Not a search Whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy (Katz 2 part reasonable expectation of privacy test) Subjective . web address.
Riley Greenhouse (some roofing and siding). Dow had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior of the covered buildings of the facility. “General Public Use Test” If technology is in general public use. thermal imager. The Court found no invasion of “industrial curtiligage”. 400 feet. Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed. curtilage. trees and shrubs. fence and sign Expectation = YES. US o o o o o o EPA used a sophisticated aerial mapping camera to take photographs of the facilities from altitudes within the lawful navigable airspace. then no search 6 th th . Florida v.Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything Society reasonably recognizes expectation = NO The court argued that respondent’s expectation that his garden was protected from such observation is unreasonable and is not an expectation that society is prepared to honor. helicopters not bound by restrictions Society reasonably recognizes expectation = NO THERMAL IMAGING OF HOMES Kyllo v. precautions Objective . precautions Objective . corrugated roofing (missing two panels).Two sides of the greenhouse were enclosed. The expectations of privacy are reduced when the property is commercial rather than residential. Dow Chemical Company v. marijuana – a search and a violation of the 4 amendment – no general public use Court said that a 4 Amendment search takes place when government agents employ a device “that is not in general public use” in order to explore details of a home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. No expectation of privacy against airborne observations in public navigable airspace. Those expectations do not include the expectation of freedom from regulatory inspections. helicopter. identified marijuana → Not a search Whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation or privacy Subjective . United States Home. navigable airspace.com Expectation = YES.private and commercial flight is routine. There was no such protection from lawful surveys from the air that did not reveal intimate domestic affairs.
binoculars If technology is not in general public use. Property concepts mattered in determining whether the defendant’s expectation of privacy was reasonable but that those concepts did not control the issue. items indicative of narcotics use Court said: If garbage is exposed to public. No expectation of privacy in heat existing house SEARCHES OF TRASH California v. CONTAINER SEARCHES: Bond v. 7 . then no search (regardless of what the container) People assume the risk Some states like CA and NJ protect unwarranted searches of garbage especially when reasonable care is taken to protect the privacy of its contains. etc.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.” Difference in “Through the wall” and “Off the wall” Difference between information coming out of the home (no reasonable expectation of privacy) and information in the home. Flashlight. provided police garbage. Greenwood Regular trash collector. such using opaque garbage bags and securing the garbage from dogs. 2) The passenger’s expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable as one does not expect that other passengers or bus employees will as a matter of course feel the bag in an exploratory manner.com e. US A border patrol agent did violate reasonable expectations of privacy when he squeezed soft luggage that passengers had placed in the overhead storage space of a bus. th OTHER FACTORS IN THE SEARCH ANALYSIS Property Interest Courts have decided that one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of this right to exclude. 1) The passenger has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy by using an opaque bag and placing that bag directly above his seat.g. Under the 2 part 4 amendment analysis (Katz test?). And no details regarding the interior of petitioner’s home were revealed. then search Dissent said: “All that the infrared camera did in this case was passively measure heat emitted from the exterior surfaces of the petitioners home ….
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. The court held that a cocaine dealer who spent approximately two hours in the apartment of an acquaintance did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there In some circumstances a person may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the house of someone else but the court clarified that a very temporary visitor may not have such an expectation. host customarily defer carefully to their privacy needs.have access to the office. It does not expose no contraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view . consensual visitors. Ortega The court found that a state hospital administrator had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office even though in government offices many others-fellow employees. The canine sniff does not require opening the luggage. no reasonable expectation of privacy Social custom suggests that a more temporary visitor is not given privacy protection by his host. The Court reasoned that we seek temporary shelter “when were in between jobs or homes. or when we house-sit for a friend. Jacobsen A chemical test that merely discloses whether or not a particular substance is cocaine does not compromise any legitimate interest in privacy. and the general public. they no longer belong to the individual and can be examined by police without any constitutional violation. Olson overnight guest have reasonable expectation of privacy The court held that Olson had a privacy interest in the premises because of his status as an overnight guest. US v. Minnesota v. as well as when we travel to a strange city to visit relatives out-of-town……because temporary guests are especially vulnerable to the loss of privacy. Place The court held that a canine sniff of luggage did not constitute a search. Caballes – see below 8 . The Court pays attention to past practices and expectations in determining expectations of privacy. th Legality and Intimacy of Activities The court has suggested that individuals enjoy little or no privacy interest when they engage in purely illegal activities United States v. supervisors. Social Custom Minnesota v. IL v. The court reasoned that the expectation of privacy in one’s place of work has deep roots in the history of the 4 amendment. Past Practices and Expectations O’Connor v.com Many courts hold that where items are abandoned voluntarily during a chase. Carter 2hours guest.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. a reasonable privacy expectation exists. STANDING AND GOVERNMENT ACTION 9 .this distinguishes it from other cases where dogs detect generally hidden substances The court also reasoned that the drug sniff did not prolong the length of the lawful stop beyond what was justified by the traffic offense and the use of the dog therefore did not unconstitutionally expanded the scope of the stop. where the enhancement device reveals what would otherwise not be exposed to public view. or object) is generally considered neither a search nor a seizure. A reasonable expectation of privacy protects physical characteristics not ordinarily observable by the public. The questioning did not extend the duration of the search Mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure. found marijuana Court said: The use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog . forged surgical procedures. Caballes Traffic stop. such as the content of blood.during a lawful. dog alerted at trunk.com Muehler v. document. and other intrusive scientific procedures invade reasonable privacy expectations. second trooper entered with narcotics-detection dog. Subpoenas A subpoena (a court order to produce a person. Reduced Expectations of Privacy The Court has found privacy expectation to be reduced in: Vehicles-when parked in public areas.one that does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view . School settings: In Prison Cell USE OF DOGS TO SNIFF FOR CONTRABAND Illinois v. Mena The Court held that when the police executing a search warrant questioned a resident about her immigration status. However. generally does not implicate legitimate privacy concerns No reasonable expectation of privacy in illegal contraband Dog could only detect illegal contraband . traffic stop. the scraping of fingernails. breath tests for alcohol. they did not expand the scope of the search. Vantage Point The Court has refused to recognize privacy in areas open to public observation. urinalysis.
b. Rakas rule: two part test 1) Did the defendant a. Occurs when a government actor significantly interferes with a person’s freedom of movement. and set it down again. Ownership: demonstrate that the defendant had exercised complete dominion and control over. Occurs then the government works some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interest in that property” SEIZURE OF A PERSON……. amounts to an arrest. The court in Rakas held that this earlier test creates too broad a gauge for measurement of Fourth Amendment rights. leaf through its pages. was the search or seizure illegal STANDING IN THE BUSINESS CONTEXT Business Nexus Test: 10 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Authority: The defendant must be legally authorized to occupy the premises searched. Old rule: Anyone legitimately on premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality. did the defendant have a possessory interest in the item seized? 2) If so. it also prohibits unreasonable seizures SEARCH……. For example. or i. STANDING: A person aggrieved by an allegedly unlawful search or seizure and seeking a remedy (including the exclusion of evidence in a criminal case) must establish standing before a court will find the claim to be justificiable.com FOR 4 AMENDMENT. TH The Fourth Amendment protects against more than just unreasonable searches. Note: Some interference with possessory interest might be so insignificant as to be meaningless in Forth Amendment terms. if a police were to pick up a book. if the book-leaf invaded reasonable privacy expectations. DO ANALYSIS FOR BOTH A SEARCH AND A SEIZURE BECAUSE IF BOTH SEPARATE ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED. can only be urged by those whose rights were violated by the search or seizure. and the right to exclude others from those areas (lack of ownership – Rakas case) ii. But a search might have. Rakas v. the possessory interest would have been affected in a minor way that a seizure would not have occurred. The seizure of a person sometimes. have legitimate (reasonable) expectation of privacy in the place searched.search is any police conduct that intrudes upon a person “reasonable expectation of privacy” SEIZURE OF A THING……. Illinois: The Court held that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be asserted vicariously.. but not always. that is.
courts applying this test generally find that the employee has standing. United States v. In this case. but one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not Overnight guest has standing Guest just visiting does not have standing THE GOVERNMENT ACTION REQUIREMENT: A person aggrieved because of an allegedly illegal search or seizure must establish standing before obtaining relief (usually exclusion of the evidence) BUT must also establish the government action requirement. Government Action Requirement: The search or seizure must have been accomplished by a government actor. in order to be considered illegal under the Fourth Amendment. Thompson leased apartment. Minnesota v.com The relationship or nexus of the employee to the area searched is an important consideration in determining whether the employee has standing. NOTE: Not all Circuits have adopted the business nexus test as a bright line rule. Lefkowitz A corporate employee’s standing to challenge a search at corporate premises under this approach is not necessarily limited to his or her own desk or office. But where the area searched is not part of the employee’s work space. McDowell 11 . Carter Bagging cocaine. Carter and Johns only present for business (about 2 1/2 hours) Court said: no Fourth Amendment violation An overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Where evidence is seized from an employee’s area. United States v. Burdeau v. Some. as opposed to a private party. Taketa The defendant did not have standing to challenge a search of his co-worker’s office. the corporation’s president and secretary who worked at the corporate premises were found to have standing to challenge the search not only as to their own desks or offices but as to the entire suite of offices. such courts find no reasonable expectation of privacy.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. like the Tenth Circuit has adopted this test in a limited manner and held that “ an employee should be able to establish standing by demonstrating he works in the searched area on a regular basis. because that office had been given over to the co-workers exclusive use.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Subsequent Government Action: Even where a private individual has acted without the encouragement. the private person’s action. and local public official. and participation in. state. Jacobsen The Court held that the agent’s conduct did not violate a protected privacy interest. Who is a Government Actor? The Supreme Court chose the inclusive approach. as well as the purpose of the private person. endorsement. The Court found that the agent’s viewing of what a private party had freely made available for his inspection did not violate the Fourth Amendment. or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him. United States v. The Court also found that the seizure of the trace quantity of cocaine necessary for the field test. The additional invasions of respondents’ privacy by the government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search. the record showed that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of McDowell’s property. look at 2 critical factors: 1) Whether the government knew of and acquiesced (agreed) in the intrusive conduct. it protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures. that evidence is admissible if offered by the government. holding that the Constitution prohibits all unreasonable government intrusions. the government’s further intrusion constitutes a separate search or seizure that satisfies the government action requirement. If the private person can be said to have been an intentional “instrument or agent” of the government at the time of the search or seizure. the intrusion on the respondents’ possessory interest was so minimal as to be non-cognizable under the Fourth Amendment. 12 . and 2) Whether the private actor’s purpose was to assist law enforcement efforts rather than to further his own ends. then the government action requirement will be satisfied. In such a situation. Respondents could have no privacy interests in the contents of the package since it remained unsealed.com o If a private individual conducts a search or seizure and subsequently reveals to law enforcement officials evidence obtained during such a search or seizure. and participation of the government. Inclusive approach entails: federal. For a private person to be considered an agent of the government. When does private action become government action? This depends on the degree of government knowledge of. the Fourth Amendment still might be implicated if the later government conduct intrudes “further on” the aggrieved party’s Fourth Amendment interests than did the private actor’s conduct. from FBI agent down to a local school board member/school officials. o In this case.
there would be no probable cause in this case (Gates) because the credibility prong would fail as it was an anonymous tip The reliability prong was met because the info was corroborated W HAT IS SUFFICIENT BELIEF TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR PROBABLE CAUSE? With few exceptions. and even firemen entering privately owned premises to battle fire.com The Fourth Amendment is thus applicable to the activities of civil as well as criminal authorities: building inspectors. Occupational Safety and Health Act Inspectors.. Carroll v.Reasonable police officer 13 . In Aguilar-Spinelli: both prongs had to be met Under the Aguillar-Spinelli test. marijuana in trunk and house How are the police supposed to weigh tips? Court said: probable cause present Probable Cause Test Objective standard .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense had been committed.S INFORMANT TIP: information from a civilian OLD TEST: Aguilar-Spinelli – both prong had to be met 2 prong analysis – the test to determine probable cause 1) Credibility of the informant 2) How reliable is the information – was it based on firsthand knowledge IL v. U. 3 ways police will have probable cause 1) through personal observation 2) through other police officers ---police functions as an institution/collective knowledge doctrine an officer can act on the orders of another officer as long as the officer giving orders has probable cause o this include an arrest based on a valid warrant obtained by another officer who had probable cause – the arresting officer need not beware of the facts establishing probable cause an officer can act on info provided or given by other officer BUT cannot act on uncommunicated info 3) through a civilian – an informant Probable Cause Definition: at the time of arrest. Gates: NEW TEST: totality of the circumstances. Gates Anonymous handwritten letter. police evidence corroborating. searches and seizures must be supported by probable cause Illinois v.
allowed to search. stressing that it was based on insufficiently individualized suspicion as to Ybarra and that a person mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not without more give rise to probable cause to search that person. Pringle common enterprise – people in a car Probable cause that all 3 knew because: No single out. discovered cocaine Court said: probable cause present Probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt Must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized Riding in car together Provides indicia of a common enterprise Constructive possession Knowledge Ability to exercise dominion and control Ybarra v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. IL No probably cause because the warrant was for the tavern and the not the patrons Police executing a warrant to search a tavern and its bartender for evidence of possession of a controlled substance conducted pat down searches of all the customers present. . 14 .Car …common enterprise (Pringle case – probable cause) . We conclude that the officer lacked probable cause to believe that DiRe was involved in the crime Any inference that everyone on the scene of a crime is a party to it must disappear if the Government singles out the guilty person.Tavern…….less common enterprise (Ybarra – NO probable cause) Mere propinquity (nearness/closeness) is not enough DiRe The officers had no information implicating DiRe and no information pointing to DiRe’s possession of coupons. The Court invalidated the search.com Totality of the circumstances Credibility Reliability Maryland v. and seized heroin of his person. officer saw money in glove compartment. Car stopped for speeding. including Ybarra. unless presence in the car warranted that inference. none of the men provided information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or money The belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized.
g. police u-turned. fruits of crime. Probable Cause 2. intended for use. Oath Affidavit 3. Delaware 15 . or other items illegally possessed 3) Property designed for use. or used in committing a crime. and particularly describing the place to be searched.com Buttita was singled out: the criminal enterprise was between Buttitta and Reed. and the persons or things to be seized” th Warrants Elements: 1. SUV sped off. officer saw cocaine in passenger’s lap Court said: probable cause present Probable Cause Test (see above) Objective standard Whether the reasonable officer could have found probable cause under the circumstances e. NOT A SUBJECTIVE TEST. or 4) A person to be arrested or a person who is unlawfully restrained. while stopped at traffic light. but upon probable cause. supported by Oath or affirmation. traffic violation The subjective intent of that officer does not matter e.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.. no reason to suspect DiRe In Pringle – No single out. IS IT AN OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE STANDARD? PROBABLE CAUSE IS AN OBJECTIVE. place to be seized FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 41: A WARRANT MAY BE SOUGHT FOR: 1) Evidence of a crime 2) Contraband. none of the men provided information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or money. United States Suspicious Pathfinder. Particularity – person. racial profiling The search and arrest must be closely related in time (but the arrest doesn’t have to come before the search) THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT 4 Amendment Probable Cause: “no warrants shall issue.g. FRANKS TEST Frank v. Whren v.
Very difficult test to meet The defendant must ask for evidentiary hearing called a Franks hearing on the matter – the defendant must make out a substantial preliminary showing with an offer of proof o Affidavits or otherwise reliable statements of witness should be furnished during the preliminary showing. The arrest warrant does not specify the place in which the arrest should occur. Strude. they must have a search warrant in addition to the arrest warrant. If the defendant can establish an intentional (or reckless) or falsity in the warrant application. and the persons or things to be seized. 16 . (The only exception to this rule covers the dwelling in which the person named in the arrest warrant lives.com This is a procedural remedy of questionable effectiveness for a criminal defendant who believes that a police officer lied in the warrant application. This is a significant because the arrest warrant conveys no “searching” authority upon law enforcement officers. and if the falsity was necessary to the finding of probable cause. The probable cause set forth in the arrest warrant differs from that found in a search warrant. If officers wish to enter premises in order to effectuate an arrest. the affiant must establish probable cause to believe that this particular person committed this particular crime. United States v. In order to obtain an arrest warrant.) WHAT INFORMATION MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION FOR A W ARRANT? Purpose: Functions as a check on the police A search or arrest must be approved by a neutral judge Limits the police conduct by restricting the scope of the search or seizure That which is to be searched and seized must be described with specificity in the warrant W HAT FORM MUST THE W ARRANT TAKE? Analysis: If warrant: Correctly obtained? Correctly executed? If no warrant: Does exception apply? PARTICULARITY: The Fourth Amendment prohibits warrants that do not particularly describe the place to be searched.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. then evidence discovered during execution of the warrant must be suppressed. ARREST WARRANT VERSUS SEARCH WARRANT The arrest warrant application typical is entitled a “complaint” rather than an “application”.
Reasonable when issued?. proceeding with the search was clearly “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.look at the information at the time the warrant was issued Andresen v.com The standard applied in each case is whether the warrant contains sufficient particularities so that the officer can be reasonably certain of executing it correctly Maryland v. very specific application. Ramirez ATF. it is ok Totality of the circumstances Does the warrant sufficiently describe the places to be searched and the things to be seized? Groh v. then it must be incorporated and attached Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable Applies with equal force to searches whose only defect is a lack of particularity in the warrant 17 . Garrison: The warrant is to be evaluated at the time it was issued and according to the information that the officers disclosed. Those items of evidence that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validity issued. very general warrant Court said: warrant was invalid: because petitioner did not have in his possession a warrant particularly describing the things he intended to seize. The Fourth Amendment by its terms requires particularity in the warrant. to the issuing Magistrate. or had a duty to discover and to disclose. not in the supporting documents If the warrant references another document. seized 3 items from “Potomac Woods General” file. 5 items from law office Issue: the Fourth Amendment was violated because the descriptive terms of the search warrants were so broad as to make them impermissible general warrants… Court said: warrant not too general The warrant must detail with specificity (particularity) that which is to be searched or seized Must be particularized to that crime BUT if the warrant includes an inclusive expansive phrase at ending modifying the crime. or should have disclosed. to the issuing judicial official. Maryland The warrant must detail with specificity (particularity) that which is to be searched or seized Must be particularized to that crime Facts: Attorney. The validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed. investigators searched two offices.
but who received no fee for warrants applications that he declined to approve. a judge of a state court of record in the district-has authority to issue a warrant to search for and seize a person or property located within the district 2) A magistrate judge with authority in the district has authority to issue a warrant for a person or property outside the district if the person or property is located within the district when the warrant is issued but might move or be moved outside the district before the warrant is executed.how the officer acted after realizing the mistake - 2) Time and manner of execution 18 . Prosecutors and other members of law enforcement agencies cannot issue warrants. Georgia) Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure grants authority to issue warrants as follows: o Authority to Issue a Warrant: at the request of a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government 1) A magistrate judge with authority in the district – or if none is reasonably available. New York.com Affidavit has to attached to the warrant NEUTRAL AND DETACHED MAGISTRATE A neutral and detached magistrate in most cases mean a judicial officer who has no stake in the investigation for which a warrant is sought. where the Court found that the Town Justice issuing a warrant failed to be neutral and detached. for minor offenses at least. observing that no special competence was needed to evaluate the existence of probable cause in such cases. Shadwick v. Minor Offenses Although the federal rules permit only judicial officers to issue warrants. Inc. The Court invalidated warrants issued by a magistrate who was paid a fee for each warrant he issued. v. warrants may be issued by lay people who are neither judges nor lawyers. (See Connally v. See Lo-Ji Sales. the Supreme Court has indicated that. Garrison . City of Tampa o The Court upheld a municipal ordinance that permitted court clerks to issue arrest warrants in misdemeanor traffic cases. and 3) A magistrate judge-in an investigation of domestic terrorism or international terrorism – having authority in any district in which activities related to terrorism may have occurred. WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IN EXECUTING WARRANTS? THE 3 MAJOR ISSUES THAT COME UP IN EXECUTING A WARRANT ARE: 1) Mistakes when executing How reasonable was the mistake Good faith exception…Maryland v. may issue a warrant for a person or property or outside that district.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Even judicial officers who became overly involved in a case may lose their neutrality or detachment.
This case involved an arrest without a warrant.com specific time – no longer 10 days after the warrant was issued. or had the duty to discover and to disclose. Garrison Facts: A search without a warrant. actually two apartments.during daytime – 6am to 10pm . to the issuing Magistrate at the time the warrant was issued. As soon as they became aware of that fact.(validity/particularity test) Hill v. Garrison) Issue: the validity of the arrest of a man named Miller based on the mistaken belief that he was Hill. the search was discontinued. Court said: mistake was not violation The court recognized the need to allow some latitude for honest mistakes that are made by officers in the dangerous and difficult process of making arrests and executing search warrants. found drugs in wrong unit Only after the apartment had been entered and heroin.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. The officers in good faith believed Miller was Hill when they found him (Miller) in Hill’s apartment.prevent stale warrants (not supported by accurate facts) .how the officer acted after realizing the mistake ( how reasonable were the officer’s ensuing actions. California (mentioned in Maryland v.return the warrant back to the magistrate . cash. Garrison Good Faith Exception: Maryland v. 19 .(good faith exception) The discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does not retroactively invalidate the warrant o The validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed. Police obtained warrant.knock and announce policy – most jurisdiction have this 4 element 3) Treatment of Individuals th MISTAKE IN EXECUTING WARRANTS: - How reasonable was the mistake . believe only one third floor apartment. was the search discontinued upon realizing the mistake?) Good faith exception…Maryland v. and drug paraphernalia had been found did any of the officers realize that the third floor contained 2 apartments.
presumably. (c) Return the warrant to the magistrate judge designated in the warrant. Garrison) NOTE ON TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS: Courts generally hold that a typographic error in the warrant does not render the ensuing search illegal.Fourth Amendment violation Absent exigent circumstances. o Because many search warrants are executed by the same officer or group of officers who prepared the application and affidavit. the proper premises usually are searched. This rationale is equally applicable to an officer’s reasonable failure to appreciate that a valid warrant describes too broadly the premises to be searched.” The daytime hours restriction represents a balance between individual privacy interest (which. KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE Many jurisdictions also require that officers “knock and announce” before entering premises pursuant to a search warrant. warrants that may no longer be supported by accurate facts. If a different officer executes the search and searches the wrong premises. The 10-day limit prevents officers from executing “stale” warrants. found drugs Court said: failed to knock . (b) Execute the warrant during the daytime.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Courts have recognized that stale information cannot be used to establish probable cause. presumable the rule of Maryland v. that is. so long as the premises actually searched were the intended objects of the search. DO POLICE HAVE TO KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE BEFORE SEARCHING A DWELLING? Wilson v. (Maryland v. Arkansas Door open. the police must knock and announce their presence before entering a residence to execute a search warrant 20 . entered dwelling. and The term “daytime” is defined as “the hours between 6:00pm to 10:00pm according to local time. are heightened during nighttime hours) and government needs. unless the judge for good cause expressly authorizes execution at another time. police announced arrival.com The Court found that the officer’s mistake was understandable and the arrest a reasonable response to the situation facing them at the time Rational: an officer’s reasonable misidentification of a person does not invalidate a valid arrest. Garrison would apply and the search would probably be found to be valid under the good faith exception TIME AND MANNER OF EXECUTION: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 41 provides that the warrant must command the officer to: (a) Execute the warrant within a specified time no longer than within 10 days.
allowing the destruction of evidence” Police cannot have blanket exception – cases by case basis – totality of the circumstances Balancing of reasonableness – must have reasonable suspicion United States v. it would endanger officer safety or the preservation of evidence.NO Fourth Amendment violation Test: In order to justify a no-knock entry. kicked and rammed door. drug dealer saw police. closed door. entered Court said: failed to knock .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. for example. or at least not where the violation is a failure to wait a sufficient amount of time after announcing their presence before entering TREATMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WHEN A WARRANT IS BEING EXECUTED: 21 . for example. Richards v. police knocked. it may be reasonable to dispense with it if. Wisconsin Motel room.The police did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they waited only 15-20 seconds if they had reason to believe that waiting longer would provide the opportunity for the suspects to destroy contraband . Excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment. How long a period of time the police must wait after knocking and announcing before they may forcibly enter a residence? United States v. police identified themselves. would be dangerous or futile. waited 15-20 seconds.Facts: Weekday afternoon at 2pm. even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search not subject to suppression. Banks . or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by. no answer. then police broke down the door – Banks was in the shower and did not hear the police knowing and was just exiting the shower as the police entered . under the particular circumstances. “the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence. the knock-and-announce procedure is not always constitutionally required. Michigan The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence gained after police violate the knock and announce requirement. Ramirez Facts: Officers broke through a garage window while executing a “no-knock” warrant Reasonableness of police conduct Reasonable suspicion standard depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter.com However.Usually case by case basis and based on what is reasonable Hudson v.
and immigration status Court said: handcuffing and questioning did not constitute a violation Three legitimate law enforcement interests that provide substantial justification for detaining an occupant: Preventing flight in the event that incriminating evidence is found Minimizing the risk of harm to the officers Facilitating the orderly completion of the search Mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual. or evidence of a crime will be found ARREST – Arrests must be reasonable. SWAT came. Mena Mena was asleep. The seriousness of the offense 22 . police executed warrant. instrumentalities. people naked. Reasonableness test – consider 4 things 1. police held them gunpoint. date of birth. whether or not occupied by a third party.com Michigan v. Rettele New owners of house. however. those present at the time of the search may be detained Muehler v. at which there is probable cause to believe that fruits. California v. asked name. Summers When there is a search of a residence. place of birth. handcuffed and taken to garage.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Stanford Daily Valid warrants may be issued to search any property. not allowed to dress Court said: mistake was not violation When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm. they may generally: Ask questions of that individual Ask to examine the individual’s identification Request consent to search his or her luggage W HAT IF THERE ARE UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES OR MISTAKES W HILE EXECUTING A W ARRANT? Los Angeles County. the Fourth Amendment is not violated Zurcher v.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. arrested mother Court said: no fourth amendment violation The Court confirmed that the Fourth Amendment also permits arrests – even warrantless ones – for traffic misdemeanors committed in their presence. and to search the suspect in order to safeguard the evidence and ensure their own safety…pg 304 Level of Suspicion Probable cause is the level of suspicion needed for an arrest Reasonable suspicion needed for a seizure – standard :. he may. The standard of probable cause applies to all arrests. sharp instruments. not based on hunch or suspicion Arrest – is a seizure – level of suspicion is probable cause Terry test – deals with weapons (armed with weapons. includes not only guns but also knives. without violating the Fourth Amendment. the Fourth Amendment protections cannot vary from “place to place”. the 4 amendment permits them to make an arrest. without the need to balance the interests and circumstances involved in particular situations If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence. The level of suspicion necessary 3. City of Lago Vista Cop saw family without seatbelts. is about to commit a crime or had committed a crime Voluntary encounter – not an seizure/arrest. etc.a seizure and a search – reasonable suspicion – reasonable suspicion that the defendant is harmed and dangerous (required for a frisk)……by clearly articulated facts. Rule: when officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence.reasonable suspicion that the defendant has committed a crime. arrest the offender Virginia v. pulled over truck. The use of force Serious of offense Given by statutes – the 4 amendment acts as a check on police conduct Atwater v.com 2. Moore Citation only offense – the state supreme court said the search violated the 4 amendment -defendant should not have been arrested The US Supreme Court said that it did not violated the 4 amendment -The 4th amendment has a harsh punishment – suppression of evidence The Court said the 4 amendment should apply across the board – all states – that is. no level of suspicion – the officers walk up to you and ask your name Stop – is a seizure of a person – reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or about to commit a crime Stop and Frisk .) – suspicion that the defendants have weapons not merely that the defendant was dangerous 23 th th th th th . The requirement of a warrant 4.
Limited detentions One’s home – arrest warrant – no search warrant to search home o o Warrant requirement is excused in exigent circumstances” Warden v.search warrant also o o To protect the privacy expectations of that third party The search warrant must be based on an affidavit establishing probable cause to believe that the defendant will be found in the home of the third party at the time of the search?? Kaupp v.” th Use of Force In making an arrest. Minnesota v. having dinner. the force used must be reasonable. or sharing a few drinks – is not enough to treat that home as the defendants. and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. or the risk of danger to the police or to other persons inside or outside the dwelling. chatting. 24 .or the need to prevent a suspect’s escape. including o o o the severity of the crime at issue. which depends on: A careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake Careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case are required. even though based on less than probable cause……. Olsen o The court noted iin dictum that warrants may be dspesnsed with if there is “hot pursuit of a fleeing felon. whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others. with or without a warrant. Public place – no warrant. the arresting officer may be required to use force if the suspect flees or resists. or imminent destruction of evidence…. so long as there is probable cause o Police also can seize contraband in a public place without a warrant. Another’s/third party home – arrest warrant .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Hayden o The Court had noted that the 4 Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. temporary stay in a home – for example. A defendant’s home includes any residence where the defendant is an overnight guest. Texas o o o The Court noted that it did not necessarily bar reasonable suspicion detentions for fingerprinting where the judiciary authorized them by issuing a warrant.com Requirement of a Warrant The warrant requirement in the context of arrests and other seizures is governed by the location of the action. A defendant’s brief. The Court suggested that warrants to pick someone up solely for fingerprinting may be issued based solely on reasonable suspicion. Because an arrest is a seizure.
Tennessee v. Youths clustered around vehicle. No Fourth Amendment seizure because the police accidentally stopped the suspect by crashing into him. meant that Hodari had not been seized when he threw down the cocaine.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Lewis The Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to an action for damages that were caused by a highspeed police chase and ensuing vehicular crash. Actions were reasonable in this case REQUIREMENT OF PROMPT ARRAIGNMENT 25 . The Court determined that it did not matter whether or not the officer’s action constituted application of deadly force (Garner). is constitutionally unreasonable However. nor got him to submit to his show of authority. either to the officer or to others. An seizure requires either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority A fleeing suspect has not been seized unless he stops. either because he is physically forced to do so or because he submits to an officer’s show of authority. where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm.com The reasonableness of a particular use of the force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. when youth saw cop. cops chased youth. If officer shoots and missed – no seizure If a person is accidentally injured during the course of a high-speed chase – no seizure -(no intentional government seizure) County of Sacramento v. saw cops. Not a seizure – not intentional government seizure th Scott v. whatever the circumstances. In this case. Hodari D. the fact that the police officer neither grabbed Hodari. threw crack rock. cop then caught and tackled him Court said: no fourth amendment violation The Court said that seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes means “a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement… as well as submission to the assertion of authority. Harris The Court held that Deputy Scotts actions were reasonable under the 4 amendment even though he placed Harris at risk of serious injury or death. it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. California v. all that matters is whether his actions were reasonable. Garner The deadly force rule o o The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects.
police searched criminal. TH EXPIRATION OF 4 AMENDMENT INTEREST AFTER ARREST The Fourth Amendment not only governs the reasonableness of arrests. A Gerstein hearing’s taking place with 48 hours of arrest is presumptively reasonable. Watson Informant. Pugh The Court held that the officer’s probable cause judgment justifies only a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest.com Gerstein v. searched his vehicle. found stolen credit cards Court said: constitutional A police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the officer upon reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony Arrest warrants are not needed to make an arrest in public Arrest warrants are needed to make an arrest in the home Unless exigent circumstances exist Search warrants are needed to make an arrest in a third party’s home BUT an overnight guest has an expectation of privacy (then an arrest warrant would be needed) STOP AND FRISK – THE “TERRY” TEST Encounter Stop/Seizure Level of Suspicion Voluntary Stop Frisk (pat down) Yes Arrest No Yes None RS that a crime was committed. Mclaughlin) A post 48-hour Gerstein hearing is presumptively unreasonable and the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. SEIZURES AND ARRESTS IS A WARRANT NEEDED FOR ARRESTS? United States v. signaled to police. set up meeting with a criminal. or will be committed RS that the person is armed and dangerous Yes Probable cause 26 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. (County of Riverside v. but also it requires a prompt post-arrest determination of probable cause in the case of a warrantless arrest.
Buie. a seizure is said to have occurred A stop occurs when limited seizure of a person to reasonable believe that his freedom of movement was restricted An officer’s request to “ask a few questions” does not turn the encounter into a stop unless the officer’s words. Stop/Seizure: because a stop temporarily restricts the individual’s freedom to leave. Level of suspicion: (individualized) reasonable suspicion that a suspect is armed and dangerous. on the scene detention that is limited in time Level of suspicion: Requires only reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot During the brief period of the stop. In addition to frisking a person. NOTE: Neither the Terry frisk nor the search incident to arrest. Arrest: The invasion of an individual’s freedom is so intrusive. the officer may ask questions in order to confirm or dispel suspicions.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Level of suspicion: probable cause minimal /reasonable intrusion of person of privacy in ones person An officer may frisk an area if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person within the area is armed and dangerous. is not free to terminate the encounter. would permit searching the trunk. Long and. The Court applied this rule to the passenger compartment of a car in Michigan v. an officer may also frisk an area if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person within the area is armed and dangerous.or demeanor would signal to an objectively reasonable person that the person is not free leave Frisk A frisk is a patdown of a person’s outer clothing (Terry) The patdown is limited in scope and intensity to its justification – the officer’s purpose is to discover weapons.com Voluntary encounter The individual is free to leave without answering any questions and in which no 4 amendment search or seizure occurs th Seizure: Seizure under Terry must be no more than a brief stop. Stop: The individual. 27 . has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen . where that freedom is restricted for more than a brief period of time. for a brief period . but if the officer’s suspicion are not confirmed within a very brief period of time. A trunk search requires probable cause to believe that fruits. Lingering even a few seconds over a package that feels like it contains drugs goes beyond the scope of the justification . the detention must end When the officer. in Maryland v. to a residence in which police were executing an arrest warrant. conduct. however. contraband. or evidence of a crime will be found in the trunk. by means of physical force or show of authority.
Mendenhall Woman got off plane.probable cause Differentiating factors: (1) Duration.com THE AUTHORITY FOR POLICE TO STOP AND FRISK Terry v.needed for both a frisk and a stop rd 4 point from Terry: The nature of the crime … can support a reasonable suspicion to frisk th WHEN IS A PERSON SEIZED? United States v. Ohio Reasonable Test: balancing test: o o Government interest – 1) to prevent crimes and 2) safety of police officers Private interest – Terry right to freedom of movement on the streets Defendant: the police did not have probable cause for the stop Prosecutor: No probable cause required because this was not an actual search but a voluntary search and minimal intrusion Court: probable cause is not needed. third man came to talk. Under a Terry case/stop. police can make you show id 3 point from Terry: The suspicion has to be based on specific articulable facts that lead the officer to believe that criminal activities are afoot.”…can’t be based on a hunch… based on specific instances that justify…. then followed him Court said: no fourth amendment violation Police may frisk an individual if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has a weapon that might endanger the officers Both stops and arrests are seizures within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment Stop . questioned her in the concourse. however. searched bag and person. walked down street. peered in window. this was not an arrest but a stop and a seizure Court said that arrest is different form a frisk (a limited search for weapons)….Downloaded From OutlineDepot. DEA agents spotted her.see page 333 The court adopts 2 part inquiry whether the seizure and search were unreasonable whether the officers action was justified at its inception the scope of the officers actions afterwards. by means of physical force or show of authority. has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a seizure has occurred 28 . took her to office. (2) Location Terry v. repeated routine.reasonable suspicion Arrest . Whether the officers actions were reasonable in scope to the circumstances which justified the inference in the first place. found cocaine Court said: no fourth amendment violation Only when the officer. Ohio Chilton and Terry.
ask for identification. in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident. Johnson: o o The Court concluded that a traffic stop of a car communicates to a reasonable passenger that he or she Is not free to terminate the encounter with the police and move about at will.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and request consent to search luggage. The police had to have reasonable suspicion that the person frisked was herself armed and dangerous. California The Court held that a purported Terry stop of a car is ordinarily a seizure not only of the car and its driver but of any passengers. they may pose questions. Drayton: o o o This case involved questing of bus passengers by three police officers. the Court held that the passengers are not “free to leave. However. then he or she has not been seized. they did not summon the Mendenhall but instead approached her and identified themselves as federal agents Florida v. a reasonable person would NOT have believed that he was free to leave Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure (even where the person did not attempt to leave): The threatening presence of several officers The display of a weapon by an officer Some physical touching of the person of the citizen The use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled In this case.com A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if. Brendlin v. the Terry frisk test was not automatically met. the Court found that no seizure occurred because the events took place in the public concourse. Bostwick Test for seizure on buses: Whether a person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter United States v. emphasizing that where there was at least reasonable suspicion to stop a car.” Conclusion: the officer had no justifiable grounds (reasonable suspicion) for stopping the car Arizona v. Test: If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter. 29 . Passengers are seized when they are riding in a car stopped by police officers Police conduct a traffic stop of a vehicle for an expired registration. The Court clarified Brendlin. the agents wore no uniforms and displayed no weapons. the Terry stop test was automatically met as to the car’s passenger. Law enforcement officers need not have a basis for suspecting a particular individual.
it is not a stop. STOPS VERSUS ARRESTS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN STOPS AND ARRESTS Having decided that an individual has been seized.com o An officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop do not convert the encounter into something other than a lawful seizure. it is an arrest The detention of a suitcase (items may be subjected to a Terry stop) for 90 minutes was deemed too long. at some point it can no longer be justified as an investigative stop (there is no hard and fast time limit) Between 30 and 40 minutes was a stop. If held for additional investigation. United States v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. THE PLACE OF DETENTION Pennsylvania v. Florida v. Mimms The Court created a bright line rule permitting officers to order drivers out of their vehicles after a Terry traffic stop. and placed in an interrogation room. emphasizing that during the detention officers were pursuing their investigation diligently and effectively. or was the seizure a full blown arrest. Place Detaining a person’s luggage for 90 minutes was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment Only long enough to effectuate the purpose for the stop. as a matter of officer safety. so long as such inquiries do not appreciable extend the stop’s duration. Stops an arrests are distinguished primarily on the basis of the length and place of detention THE LENGTH OF THE STOP United States v. Royer Taking a suspect from the public area of an airport into a small room constituted an arrest 30 . transported to police station. Wilson) Dunaway v. Passengers may ordered out as well (Maryland v. it must then be determined whether the seizure was a Terry stop which only requires reasonable suspicion. which requires probable cause. not an arrest The Court upheld a 20 minute detention as a Terry stop. Sharpe If an investigative stop continues indefinitely. New York An arrest has occurred if police officers take a suspect to the station house for questioning The suspect was taken from a neighbor’s home to a police car.
by itself. they may conduct a prospective sweep of the premises if they have reasonable suspicion that a person might be there who poses a threat to them Such a sweep may extend only to a cursory inspection of those places where a person may be found Minnesota v.com Detentions that move beyond the immediate vicinity of the stop are likely to be considered arrests. they can conduct a limited investigation of an area from which a person could obtain a weapon A Terry frisk extends to cars A frisk is not limited to a person A frisk can apply to a compartment of a car Doesn’t apply to trunk – probable cause needed to search a trunk Michigan v. Texas) W HAT MAY POLICE DO W HEN THEY STOP AN INDIVIDUAL? Michigan v. Florida Taking a suspect to the police station house for fingerprinting was an arrest and had to be based upon probable cause Suspects forcibly taken to police headquarters will undoubtedly be viewed as having been arrested. Hayes v. (Kaupp v. officer arrested the man Court said: no fourth amendment violation Interrogation relating to one’s identity or a request for identification by the police does not. asked for man’s name. he refused 11 times. officer arrived. constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure An officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop Don’t have to answer a police…can’t make you show id but they can ask your name…needs reasonable suspicion? W HAT IS SUFFICIENT FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION? 31 . they may seize any evidence that is apparent to their experienced plain feel Hiibel v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Long If the police reasonably believe that a person might be dangerous. Buie When the police arrest a person. Hayes was picked up on reasonable suspicion of rape and taken to a stationhouse for fingerprinting Forcibly taken to a stationhouse/ police headquarters constitutes an arrest. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Caller reported assault. Dickerson When the police frisk a person.
unprovoked 32 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Totality of the circumstances: this standard requires courts to consider all facts and circumstances identified by the officer.reliable quality Quantity of the information QUANTUM/QUANTITY OF EVIDENCE FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION Brown v. Illinois v. Factors to consider: Fleeing from the police. suspicious minivan. The likelihood of criminal activity need not rise to the level required for probable cause Evaluating whether reasonable suspicion exists. took off with opaque bag under arm. like evaluating facts for probable cause. requires an assessment both of the quantity of available information and the quality of that information. Wardlow Wardlow looked at police officers.. officer stopped and found marijuana Court said: no fourth amendment violation…. an individual’s unprovoked flight upon noticing the police give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop.. as well as deference to the officer’s expertise in interpreting those facts and circumstances. REASONABLE SUSPICION BASED ON TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES United States v. reasonable suspicion must be supported by “articulable facts” the officer must be able to articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch.the stop was properly based on reasonable suspicion The Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officer’s action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot Must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing The agent was entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area’s inhabitants. Arvizu Border patrol. o o Quality of the facts . police officers caught Wardlow and felt the bag. Texas The Court overturned a finding of reasonable suspicion that was based solely on the defendant’s presence in a high crime area. identified gun inside Court said: no fourth amendment violation The court held that in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking.com Like probable cause.
an anonymous tip lacking indicia of reliability of the kind contemplated in Adams and White does not justify a stop and frisk whenever and however it alleges the illegal possession of a firearm REASONABLE SUSPICIONS BASED ON PROFILES 1.L. found drugs Court said: no fourth amendment violation. Williams Known informant Information more reliable Florida v. White Police received anonymous telephone call. J. the anonymous tip had been sufficiently corroborated to furnish reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in criminal activity. Cases in which the officer’s authority to make the initial stop is at issue.quantity and quality . but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause Both factors . that must be taken into account when evaluating whether there is reasonable suspicion Adams v.the whole picture. to justify a Terry stop and frisk. in and of itself. give rise to reasonable suspicion 33 .are considered in the totality of the circumstances .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Police received anonymous telephone call. The fact that a person matches a profile probably does not. located individual – young black male at bus stop wearing plaid shirt: found gun Court said: fourth amendment violation. by itself. followed individual. do not predict future behavior The Court unanimously held that a person carrying a gun to be insufficient. predict future behavior When the officers stopped White. A tip standing alone would not warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that a stop was appropriate Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause.com High drug area……would not alone be enough to satisfy reasonable suspicion QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR REASONABLE SUSPICION (INFORMANT’S TIPS) TIPS: Factors to consider: Whether the informant is known or anonymous Whether the information can predict future behavior Alabama v.
Georgia . and instrumentalities of crime that they find in “plain view. United States v. These changes include: 1) authorizing the detention for questioning for up to seven days of individuals who are certified by the US attorney general or the commissioner of immigration as immigrants suspected of involvement in terrorism 2) “roving wiretaps” taps on any telephone used by a person suspected of involvement in terrorism.The Court held that these facts were not sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion required for the stop. 3) the availability of nationwide search warrants for terrorism investigations 4) the sharing among intelligence and criminal justice officials of certain information on investigations. fruits. Sokolov DEA agents were suspicious. various factors pointed to possible drug trafficker Court said: no fourth amendment violation PROFILES CONCLUSION: Reid and Sokolov appears to be that courts reviewing Terry stops cannot rely exclusively on the fact that an individual matched a profile. when they evaluate for themselves the suspiciousness of certain behaviors and characteristics that form the asserted basis for the stop. and its provisions create significant changes in the federal criminal justice system.com 2. .Reid was suspected of wrongdoing because he appeared to the agent to fit he so-called drug courier profile.” Coolridge v. New Hampshire Under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant (reasonable if immediately apparent as contraband) 34 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and 3. embodied in profiles. but they may defer to accumulated law enforcement experience. evidence. THE PATRIOT ACT: The Patriot Act: in response to the 9/11 attacks The Patriot Act is a lengthy and complex piece of legislation. the fact that a person matches a profile does not detract from the inferences that might reasonably be drawn Reid v. EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANTS REQUIREMENT PLAIN VIEW Police officers are permitted to seize contraband. But officers may rely in part on cumulative law enforcement wisdom embodied in profiles when assessing the inferences that may be drawn from a person’s conduct or attributes. a somewhat informal compilation of characteristics believed to be typical of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics.
but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object Not legitimate seizure: Used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges Horton v. crack cocaine Court said: violation Plain view doctrine not limited to plain view.com Common facts: The police officer has a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused Legitimate seizure: Search is supported by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement Where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused. it was not immediately apparent Crack cocaine must be reasonably apparent without the necessity for manipulation SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST 35 . moved equipment.. could include plain feel The officer’s continued exploration of respondent’s pocket after concluded that it contained no weapon was unrelated to the sole justification to the search under Terry. found numbers. radioed headquarters Court said: violation Since it was not apparent that the item was contraband. he could do so pursuant to the plain view doctrine because he was lawfully on the premises in which he viewed them. Additional conditions: Not only must the item be in plain view. the officers needed to have probable cause for their search Minnesota v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. California Warrant authorizing search of proceeds of armed robbery.. thought stolen merchandise. officer viewed weapons used in the crime Court said: no violation Although the warrant did not authorized him to seize the weapons. the protection of the police officer and others nearby Pat-down = okay Manipulate crack cocaine = not okay Since officer had to do this. cop patted down. but he or she must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself Arizona v. felt small lump. its incriminating character must also be immediately apparent Not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen. Hicks Police entered apartment. Dickerson (plain touch) Respondent suspicious. warrant.
com Requirements: 1) An arrest 2) Limited in Scope 3) Applies to containers 4) Contemporaneous 5) Probable cause to seize items – probable cause that the item is contraband. Robinson Robinson stopped. searched entire house. Knowles received citation. a search incident to arrest requires no additional justification. it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape It is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction AND the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or evidentiary items United States v. Custodial arrest: is a seizure of the person with the intention of thereafter having him transported to the police station or other place to be dealt with according to law. The threat to officer safety from issuing a traffic citation is a good deal less than in the case of a custodial arrest 36 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. found heroin Court said: no violation . instrumentality. officer searched vehicle. then may search regardless of reason for arrest The authority to search flows from the arrest itself – it must be lawful or the results of the search will suppressed. marijuana. or a fruit. Iowa Speeding violation. California Arrested robber (pursuant to a warrant). pot pipe Court said: search of car was unconstitutional . Knowles v.no arrest incident to search The Court held that the doctrine of searches incident to arrest applies only when a police officer actually effectuates a custodial arrest.arrest A search incident to arrest is permissible even if there is no reason to believe that the individual has weapons If police make lawful arrest of a citizen. opened drawers Court said: violation When an arrest is made. expired license. officer searched Robinson. or evidence of a crime 6) Applies to cars – Gant 2 part tests 7) Protective Sweeps Chimel v.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Arrested person has more reason to engage in violence and destroy the evidence (policy) o United States v. Chadwick The Supreme Court invalidated the search of a footlocker that had been removed to a government building from the place of arrest The search and arrest must be “contemporaneous” they cannot be too remote in time from each other. Once law enforcement officers have reduced luggage or other personal property not immediately associated with the person of the arrestee to their exlusive control, and there is no longer any danger that the arrestee might gain access to the property to seize a weapon or destroy evidence, a search of that property is no longer an incident of the arrest o United States v. Robbins The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the search of a wallet that police had left at the place of arrest and returned for after the arrest was completed.. The court held that the government was unable to establish that he search of the wallet was contemporaneous with the arrest. o United States v. Clemons The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a suitcase search that took place two or three minutes after Clemons arrest, even though Clemons was approximately 300 yards from the suitcase when he was arrested. Clemons dropped the locked suitcase and attempted to flee the scene. After he was captured and arrested, he was taken immediately to the DEA office at the airport – a walk that took or three minutes. o The court held that the search was incident to the arrest because the two were closely related in time. United States v. Edwards The Supreme Court upheld the seizure of an arrestee’s clothing under the search incident to arrest doctrine, even where it occurred in the jail some ten hours after the arrest. There appeared to be extenuating circumstances justifying the delay. This should be viewed as a narrow exception for situations in which an immediate search is virtually impossible and exigency still exists at the time of the later search Seizure of an item found during a search incident to arrest o o In order to justify seizing an item found during a search incident to arrest, the officer must have probable cause to believe that the item is contraband, or a fruit, instrumentality, or evidence of a crime. If not, the item must be returned to the arrestee eventually, although it may be placed in a locker for safekeeping while the arrestee is detained.
SEARCHES IN AUTOMOBILES New York v. Belton
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Officer gave chase; pulled car over; men did not know the owner; smelled burnt marijuana; searched men; searched car; discovered black leather jacket; found cocaine Court said: no violation - When a police officer lawfully makes a custodial arrest of an automobile occupant, the officer may search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle incident to the arrest. - The arresting officer may examine the contents of any containers within the passenger compartment since those containers and their contents would have been within that area of per se control. - Encompasses only the interior of the passenger compartment of an automobile and does not encompass the trunk The police may also examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment, for if the passenger compartment is within reach of the arrestee, so also will containers in it be within his reach Open or closed The lawful custodial arrest justified the infringement of any privacy interest the arrestee may have Thorton v. United States Suspicious driver; driver parked, got out; officer patted him down; felt front pocket; marijuana and cocaine Court said: no violation Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact until the person arrested left the vehicle The Belton rule applies regardless of whether the police interaction was initiated before or after the suspect left the vehicle The court held that so long as an arrestee is the sort of “recent occupant” of a vehicle, officers may search that vehicle incident to arrest. Officers may search vehicles upon arrest if they have reason to believe that evidence “relevant to the crime of arrest” might be found in the vehicle. Once an officer determines that there is probable cause to make an arrest, it is reasonable to allow officers to ensure their safety and to preserve evidence by searching the entire passenger compartment
Arizona v. Gant 2 part rule: GOVERNING RULE 1) When the search takes place? If the arrestee (recent occupant) is unsecure, and within reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, the officer can search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle If the arrestee is secured, then the officer cannot search the car (no issue of officer safety) Narrows Belton
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com 2) The entire passenger compartment of a vehicle of a current arrestee may be searched incident to arrest as well as when there is reason to be believe that there is evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle……doesn’t matter whether the arrestee is secured or unsecured Reason to believe…appears to be a lower standard than reasonable suspicion
PROTECTIVE SWEEPS Rule permitting in every in-home arrest a protective check of areas adjacent to the arrest from which an attack might immediately be launched against the arresting officer and broader protective sweeps of specific areas in which the officer has a reasonable suspicion that confederates who pose a danger to the officer or others may be lurking. The search is limited only to where someone can hide, a search of a drawer would be unconstitutional because someone can’t hide in there, therefore, the police cannot open closed drawers Can seize evidence only if they have probable cause Sweep must be contemporaneous with the arrest
Maryland v. Buie Officers entered Buie’s residence armed with a warrant for his arrest and apprehend him as he was leaving his basement. An officer went into the basement to see if an accomplice was hiding there. Although the officer found no one inside, he spotted and seized a red running suit that had been described by an eyewitness to the robbery. The Court held that A protective sweep is not a full search of the premises. Search is limited to the cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found Must last no longer than is necessary to dispel the reasonable suspicion of danger reasonable suspicion that the people in the house is armed and dangerous is not required but only that the person is dangerous…don’t need to establish that fact…only that people may be in the house
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES Factors to consider: (United States v. MacDonald) The grave nature of the ongoing crimes The presence of loaded weapons A likelihood that the suspects were themselves using narcotics A clear and immediate threat of danger to law enforcement agents and to the public at large Not only more than the minimum probable cause to believe, but actual knowledge, that the suspect committed the crime At least strong reason to believe the suspects were on the premises A likelihood that a suspect might escape if not quickly apprehended An urgent need to prevent the loss of evidence The additional time required to obtain a warrant (given the time of day) An attempt by the agents to enter peacefully
Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Requires a case by case analysis Balancing Test: The doctrine requires balancing the severity of the warrantless intrusion on protected interests and the severity of the criminal activity
Justification: Hot pursuit Welsh v. Wisconsin Drunk driver; another driver tried to help; drunk driver left car and walked to his house; police followed; found him upstairs and arrested him Court said: the warrantless home entry, a major invasion of privacy, could not be justified by the government’s interest in solving a relatively minor crime An important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being made Risks: Destruction of evidence - blood alcohol evidence Distinguish from hypothetical Gravity of offense - drugs Concern of preserving the evidence - less likely than Welsh
The police can enter based on exigent circumstance sif they have reason to be evidence will be destroyed
Warrantless entry in a home based on exigent circumstances is unconstitutional if the offense is minor (traffic violation)
Vale v. Louisiana The government cannot justify a warrantless entry and search on the risk that narcotics will be destroyed unless they demonstrate that the narcotics were in the process of destruction or about to be removed Police officers arrested Vale in front of his home after observing him engage in what appeared to be narcotics transaction. The officers entered his home and searched it, later claiming that the warrantless search was justified by the risk that the drugs would have been destroyed if they had waited for a search warrant. Has to demonstrate that they think that the drug is being destroyed
Cupp v. Murphy The Court validated the seizure of blood, tissue, and fiber samples from under the fingernails of a murder suspect. The suspect had voluntary submitted to questioning regarding the recent strangulation of his wife. Fearing that the evidence on his hands might be destroyed, the police took incriminating samples of blood, tissue, and fiber from under his fingernails without his consent. The severity of the crime involved and the minimal intrusion occasioned by the search and seizure clearly influenced the Court’s decision
Utah v. Fisher This “emergency aid exception” does not depend on the officers’ subjective intent or the seriousness of any crime they are investigating when the emergency arises. entered house.com Exigent circumstance – evidence is being destroyed Schmerber v. the delay necessary to obtain a warrant threatened the destruction of evidence Exigent circumstance – blood alcohol will destroy with time in the blood --warrantles search ok? Hot pursuit – Fleeing felon This rule permits officers to enter premises without a warrant if: 1) they are in pursuit of a fleeing felon…. thus justifying a warrantless entry into the home. Stuart Police called regarding loud party..doesn’t have to mean actual chasing 2) that pursuit began in a public place…. Charles W.” Warden.where the officer could have made the warrantless arrest United States v. Hayden Limited by time – after finding the person should end Limited in space – should only search where they think the person or weapons can be found Brigham City.. California The Court upheld warrantless blood sampling activity.) Exigency: Subjective intent does not matter Objective standard Michigan v. Hayden 41 . STANDARD: It requires only “an objectively reasonable basis for believing. entered backyard. regardless of an individual’s officer state of mind (The Court found reasonable basis under these circumstances for police to believe an occupant was seriously injured or imminently threatened with serious injury. Penitentiary v. fight ceased Court said: Law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury. witnessed fight through window.” that “a person within [the house] is in need of immediate aid. regardless of an individual officer’s state of mind. MD.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.Santana Officers have probable cause to arrest Santana for a narcotics felony Santana was standing in her door way when the pursuit began – sufficient for public space Warden v. Schmerber was in the hospital at the time.
driver saw suspect. their search and seizure activity will not be approved. without a warrant Presumptively unreasonable United States v. found suspect (then arrested him) Court said: okay The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others Broad scope Police enter house without a warrant to: Prevent the dangers that the suspect may resist or escape Payton v. police went to his house. the courts are not reluctant to uphold the resulting search or seizure. lead to Payton. Exigent circumstances – belief that the brother could be home destroying drugs United States v.com Robbery of cab company.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. McArthur The Court held that police acted constitutionally when they prohibited a resident from entering his home for two hours while they obtained a search warrant for marijuana. Rubin Suspect was arrested near a neighborhood gas station. found . The Court considered a failed narcotics sting that created dangerous circumstances for an informant and officers. went to house. knocked and announced. no response. but entered. the statement indicated a strong possibility that the evidence at the house would be destroyed by the brother absent intervention. AUTOMOBILES AND CONTAINERS 42 . he yelled out the station attendant “call my brother” According to the agents. Crespo Danger to officers or others in narcotics cases also frequently justifies warrantless law enforcement activity.30-caliber shell casing Court said: not okay The physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed Searches and seizures Inside a home. NOTE If exigent circumstances arise as a direct result of irresponsible conduct by law enforcement officers. New York Murder investigation. or as a direct result of conduct that the officers intended to create the exigent circumstances. The danger convinced the court to uphold a warrantless home entry Illinois v. radioed dispatch who radioed police. But if the exigencies arise because suspects respond in a criminal fashion to routine police actions.
which would have already be present) The exception extends to containers within vehicles as well. police see boy enter. To search a trunk otherwise…need probable cause that the trunk contains fruits of a crime or contrabands Can’t normally search the trunk of a car. United States A search warrant is unnecessary where there is probable cause to search an automobile stopped on the highway The agents developed probable cause to believe that Carroll was transporting alcohol in his car. Carney Mobile home. Policy: the Fourth Amendment does not require warrants for vehicles because they may disappear before a warrant can be obtained. whether the vehicle was licensed. Carroll v. the automobile exception still applies 43 . but because the car is mobile and he might flee by the fact that he place the bag in the car the officers can now enter without the car without warrant. boy says exchanged sex for marijuana. immovable mobile homes might not be subject to the exception even though they might technically be considered vehicles. can they search the entire car? YES. police enter without warrant Court said: no fourth amendment violation Vehicle exception: Element of mobility (includes those with permanency) Reduced privacy expectations (because of regulations) The Court suggested that fixed. Less privacy expectations in a vehicle than in a home Being heavily regulated: they are subject to state licensing requirements that further limit their owners’ and occupants’ privacy interests. Maroney If the automobile had been taken to the police station. and thus was not movable. and whether it has convenient access to a public road Chambers v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.com Rule: Automobile Exception Police will never need warrant (because warrants requires probable cause. if they have probable cause (just because he put the bag in a mobile device – because he can now drive the car away) After searching the trunk. Factors to consider in distinguishing mobile homes from residences: location. whether it is connected to utilities. stop him.does the defendant have to have been in the car…under Wyoming…regardless of who owns the car California v. if the officer has probable cause that here is drugs in the car Search incident to arrest….
com United States v. Houghton Police do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they search a passenger’s personal belongings (e. The weight of the states purported noncriminal interest i. the probable cause extends to the containers within it The Court held that containers in cars may be searched under the automobile exception whether probable cause relates to the entire car or only to the container…probable cause to search container. the effectiveness of the chosen means in attaining the states’ goals ii.g. started to leave. can be searched without a warrant only if there are exigent circumstances California v. Acevedo Surveilled marijuana. put it in trunk. guy left apartment with bag. Lesser expectation of privacy in pervasively regulated industries Camara v. Municipal Court A homeowner claimed Fourth Amendment protection against a warrantless inspection of his home by a health inspector acting pursuant to the San Francisco Housing Code. looked for bag in trunk Court said: no fourth amendment violation If there is probable cause to search a vehicle. Availability of less intrusive alternative means Individual interests: b.. then 2) Balancing the reasonable of the regulatory interest against the individual interest State interest a. Di Re Passengers could not be searched without probable cause simply because the automobile was lawfully stopped by police Wyoming v. then probable cause to search vehicle United States v. police stopped. such as luggage.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. it is reasonable for police officers to examine packages and containers without a showing of individualized probable cause for each one SPECIAL NEEDS: Two part test: 1) The government purpose is regulatory rather than law enforcement. purse) inside an automobile that they have probable cause to believes contains contraband The police may search containers within the scope of the probable cause they have developed regardless of who owns those containers The Court stated that when there is probable cause to search for contraband in a car. Chadwick Containers. In the persons home or car (less expectation of privacy) i. 44 .
but individualized knowledge about the interior condition of a particular dwelling was not required. Where the primary purpose is regulatory. Action Athlete drug testing Court said: okay Whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests Factors: 45 . Burger: Dual purpose: a search or seizure that seems to serve regulatory goals as well as the goals of criminal law enforcement. New York v. nature of the building. saying that even the most law abiding citizen has a very tangible interest in limiting the circumstances under which the sanctity of his home may be broken by official authority. Railway Executives’ Ass.O The Court held that school officials could search a student’s purse based on reasonable suspicion.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and condition of the overall area were met. The Court upheld Federal Railroad Administration regulations requiring drug testing of railway workers involved in accidents National Treasury Employees Union v. a dual purpose search or seizure will be treated as a special needs action The Court in this case upheld the validity of the search because it was taken solely to uncover evidence of criminality and not to enforce a comprehensive regulatory scheme. there did not need to be a warrant or probable cause Students have reduced expectation of privacy Vernonia School District 47J v. Miller The Court struck down a Georgia statute requiring the candidates for state office to pass a drug test The government failed to demonstrate a substantial need for suspicion less drug testing Education New Jersey v. Probable cause can be met if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection such as passage of time. Von Raab The Court upheld the United States Customs Service program requiring drug testing through urinalysis for customs workers upon their transfer or promotion to positions having a direct involvement in drug interdiction or requiring the carrying of firearms Chandler v.L.com The Court held that a warrant was needed. T. DRUG TESTING Employment Skinner v.
nurse instructed to search individual. Hospitals Ferguson v. holding that the urine testing constituted a search and declining to apply the special needs doctrine because the purpose was indistinguishable from the general public interest in crime control 46 . some women were arrested Court said: not okay The Court held that the drug screening unconstitutional. Earls Competitive extra-curricular activities Court said: okay In the context of safety and administrative regulations. beyond the normal need for law enforcement. if positive for cocaine. planner had pills. rumors of pills.com The nature of the privacy interest The character of the intrusion The nature and immediacy of the governmental concern Board of Education of Independent School District No. The Court found that 1) student privacy interests were limited in the context of extracurricular activities 2) the intrusion on those interest was negligible. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. then contacted law enforcement. Redding 14 year old. make the warrant and probable-cause requirement impracticable Engaging in a fact specific balancing of the intrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights against the promotion of legitimate governmental interest.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. over the counter drugs ibuprofen and naproxen. City of Charleston Tested urine of pregnant women. by school administrators violated the Fourth Amendment. but qualified immunity for school officials Probable cause for school searches = moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing Not here: any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear The search as actually conducted be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place The scope will be permissible when it is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction The Court held that the strip searching of a thirteen year old’s bra and panties for the forbidden (by school policy). a search unsupported by probable cause may be reasonable when special needs. pulled out bra and panties Court said: not okay. and 3) the school district’s interest was important Safford Unified School District #1 v.
Thailand to Washington. Flores-Montano Mexican border. reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal Officials at the border must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person of alimentary canal smuggling ROADBLOCKS/CHECKPOINTS Michigan Department of State Police v. DC. held her. pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country. Ramsey Envelopes. doctor pulled out cocaine balloon. finally received warrant. customs agent suspected drugs. customs agents questioned.com BORDER CROSSING United States v. neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers The constitutionality of a seizure turns upon a weighing of: Brown v. removed gas tank.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Martinez-Fuerte The operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant United States v. Sitz Sobriety checkpoint Court said: okay Roadblocks are consistent with the Fourth Amendment if they are carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit. Texas case the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest the severity of the interference with individual liberty City of Indianapolis v. transported to hospital. found marijuana Court said: okay Searches made at the border. Edmond Checkpoint looking for drugs 47 . failed to answer. Montoya-Hernandez Woman from Bogota. station wagon. opened one and saw heroin Court said: okay Any of the officers or persons authorized to board or search vessels may search any trunk or envelope in which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contrary to law United States v. female agent felt abdomen and saw underpants. arrived in LA via airplane. are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border United States v. inspected gas tank. considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip. passed 88 more Court said: okay The detention of a traveler at the border is justified at its inception if customs agents.
they may inventory the contents to protect the owner’s property while it is in police possession 48 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. including glove compartment Court said: no fourth amendment violation The Court concluded that the search was permissible because it was effectuated: 1) pursuant to law impoundment 2) of a routine nature. Was placed in the hands of the individual officer. following standard police procedures 3) for noninvestigative reasons. police took inventory. Administrative Search / Regulatory Search / Special Needs Search Based on something less than probable cause . looking for hit and run driver. and the police from unjustified lawsuits arising from such loss and theft while the property is in police custody Also. and not as a mere pretext concealing an investigatory police motive The requirement of standard departmental procedures meant that “no significant discretion…. stops can only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion Illinois v.” If property is lawfully in the possession of the police. if the seizure is itself justified: Government interest The protection of the owner’s property while it remains in police custody The protection of the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property The protection of the police from potential danger Privacy interest of the individual South Dakota v. vehicle impounded. An inventory search may be justified only if the initial seizure of the property being inventoried was permissible.com Court said: not okay When law enforcement authorities pursue primarily general crime control purposes at checkpoints. Lidster Checkpoint. questioning drivers for relevant information Court said: okay The roadblock survived the reasonableness balancing because the stop was tailored to serve a grave public concern (finding a killer) and whose primary purpose was other than the general interest in crime control SEARCHES Rule: An inventory search is one conducted by the police not for purpose of criminal investigation but rather to protect the owner’s property from loss or theft. Opperman Parking violation.not based on individual suspicion Search in compliance with routine inventory procedures. same time and place. inventories protect the safety of the police and the public by locating things in seized property that might pose danger to police or public by locating things in seized property that might pose a danger to police or the public.
in accordance with established inventory procedures Opperman extended to the search of tiems found on an arrestee. Illinois v. An Arkansas trial court and supreme court held that the methamphetine should be suppressed because the arrest was merely a pretext motivated by a desire to search Sulivan’s care. there still must be some restrictions on their discretion These limits are quite broad The Court argued that the broad limits on police officers discretion were adequate. had shoulder bag. for nothing in Opperman or Lafayette prohibits the exercise of police discretion so long as that discretion is exercised according to standard criteria on the basis of something other than suspicion of criminal activity. By someone with actual or apparent authority 49 . o Colorado v. Sullivan An officer arrested Sullivan for speeding and windshield offenses (improperly shielded).com o Arkansas v. specifically a shoulder bag carried by a man arrested for disturbing the peace and found to contain drugs. probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis. finding methamphetamine. as well as for failure to produce required paperwork and carrying a weapon (hatchet). While some regulations were needed. police looked inside Court said: no fourth amendment violation It is not unreasonable for police. Consent not viewed as a waiver 2. The Court rejected the argument that less instrusive alternatives. CONSENT Analysis: 1. The Court unanimously rejected the state’s effort to apply the inventory search exception to open a locked suitcase where the FL highway Patrol had no policy at all concerning when to open closed containers. as part of the routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person. the Court reiterated its position in Whren that “subjective intentions play no role in ordinary. such as storing rather than searching the bag. Consent must be voluntarily given a. those regulations could still vest officers with considerable discretion. Bertine. While police thus need not follow the least restrictive alternative. emphazing that Sullivan’s claim focused on the officer’s motivation for the stop and arrest. Wells: There must be at least some restrictions on the exercise of police officer discretion. to search any container or article in his possession. o Florida v. Lafayette Defendant arrested for disturbing peace. and he conducted an inventory search of t he car.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. could have been followed. The US Supreme Court overruled the Arkansas courts.
FACTS: Stopped vehicle. including the characteristics of the accused and the details of the police-citizen interaction Factors to consider (totality of the circumstances): Show of force. asked to search the trunk. express or implied. passenger opened voluntarily Court said: okay Whether a consent to a search was in fact voluntary or was the product of duress or coercion. .com 3. such as display of guns by the police Presence of officer.The suspect’s knowledge of the right to withhold consent. the state must show that the consent was obtained without coercion. one licensed. after first refusal Subjective evidence of the person who gave the consent o o o o o o youth of the accused lack of education or low intelligence lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights whether the individual was in custody when consent was given use of physical punishment such as deprivation of food or sleep possible race BALANCING: the state’s interest in investigating crime and the constitutionally protected individual interest from such investigative activity To prove that the consent was given voluntarily. such as how many officers were present Repetitive request for consent. Bustamonte Voluntariness Test: Consent is not valid if it was the product of duress or coercion.Making this determination requires examining the totality of the circumstances. the state must show that the consent was obtained without cor Schneckloth v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. express or implied The fact that the suspect was not informed of his right to refuse to consent did not invalidate the consent. six passengers. Schneckloth establishes that mere “voluntariness” requirement as the sole pre-condition to finding consent to search or seize. therefore. is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances Competing concerns: The legitimate need for such searches 50 . . Search must be within the scope of consent…did it exceed the scope of consent granted 4.To prove that consent was given voluntarily. is not always determinative or even important. Was the consent withdrawn WAS THE CONSENT VOLUNTARY? .
does not need to be informed by the police of his or her ability to leave The Court concluded that Robinette was lawfully detained when he gave his consent the officer’s subjective intention not to issue a ticket was irrelevant under Whren probable cause to stop Robinette for speeding and the officer was objectively justified in asking Robinette to get out of the car A traffic stop can be followed by a lawful detainment….Downloaded From OutlineDepot.he waived his rights by signing the form Ferguson case (maternity patients discussed in special needs) Waiver test used The majority suggested that the circumstances might require a knowing.higher standard than voluntariness requirement (voluntariness is the current the law) United States v. the Court turned to the voluntariness test. but free to leave.e. WAIVER…require a knowing. Robinette The Court held that a person lawfully stopped by the police. and voluntary waiver of rights (higher standard) as opposed to simple consent (which requires only voluntariness. intelligent. found drugs in front pockets Court said: okay.higher standard Kaupp v. Brown complied. The test for consent is whether it is voluntary under the totality of the circumstances Consent is different than genuinely appreciating options 51 . asked to search. Lombardo: Court said that the inmate had consented to the recording by his use of the telephone because he had signed the form upon arrival at the prison…. and intelligent relinquishment of rights…. Higher standard than voluntariness Ohio v.com Assuring the absence of coercion Consent is treated differently than other constitutional rights waivers (i. it’s not a waiver) Rather than analyze consent as a waiver.without giving warning that the driver can object United States v. looking for possible drugs. voluntary.. Texas The Court uses “waiver” language ( a reasonable person in Kaupp’s position would have understood that he was not free to leave) as it did in Fergusion…. bus passengers voluntarily consented to requests by police to search their bags and persons. that is. absence of coercion).. they have a special obligation to make sure that the patients hare fully informed about their constitutional rights. Drayton Officers boarded a bus. as standards of knowing waiver require……knowledge is needed….. under the totality of the circumstances analysis. Circumstances: when state employees undertake to obtain evidence from their patients for the specific purpose of incriminating those patients.
United States v. .com The suspect’s knowledge of the right to withhold consent is not always determinative or even important. search. without giving extra weight to the absence of this type of warning Police deception: o Police deception is important also. found drug stuff Court said: unconstitutional Rule: Where a co-tenant is present. Randolph Wife permission. so that is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched. ACTUAL AUTHORITY Can a third party furnish consent for another person? Yes. one refuses Police may not enter 52 . if that third party has actual or apparent authority. vocal. police may still decide to enter. Georgia v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. o One kind of deception that never invalidates consent involves undercover operations. A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him. regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant Both parties present One consents. The court repeated that the totality of the circumstances must control. Matlock A woman sharing a bedroom with the defendant consented to a search of that room after the defendant’s arrest (defendant was absent) One occupant of a residence may give consent if the other is not present The Court held that the consent was valid under the doctrine of common authority. if officers falsely claim that they have a search warrant and the person submits on the basis of that authority. and refusing to consent. For example. Actual authority depends on whether the third party shares access to or control over the premises at issue…Joint access and control. Husband refused. then the evidence obtained during the search will be suppressed.That doctrine rests on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes. The Court confirmed its rejection of “the suggestion that police officers must always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking permission to conduct a warrantless consent search. over and above that individual’s refusal to consent. but not against the demurring one. and seize incriminating evidence as against the consenting co-tenant. The courts are likely to find the consent invalid if the police misrepresent their ability to make the search. police searched house.
they must conduct their search within the scope of the consent. then a search based on that consent will be held invalid Scope of Consent: Even if officers obtain a valid consent to search. Condo: search of common areas only Children: the closer the child is to the age of maturity. Dichiarinte The defendant consented to a search of his house for narcotics.” APPARENT AUTHORITY Objective Test Illinois v.com NOTES: Landlord/Tenant relationship: the landlord cannot give consent to search. therefore. Roommates: Depend on the degree of separation of the private area from the common area being search and any retaining of areas of exclusive personal control. The pertinent question is: would a reasonable police officer under the circumstances have believed that the third party had actual authority to consent? If so. the test is an objective one. This usually involves the intensity and duration of the search Where the scope of consent is disputed. not the house’s resident or owner.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. “what would the reasonable person have understood by the exchange between the officer and the suspect?” United States v. While the detectives would have been permitted to flip through the files for hidden packages of drugs. 53 . but the detectives opened files and read documents leading to charges of income tax evasion. Such consent allowed the undercover officer an ability to enter. The consent for the latter officers came. and summons other officers for assistance. If a reasonable officer would have realized that the third party lacked authority to consent. the more likely the court is to presume the child understands the situation and to uphold the consent. Consent Once Removed Doctrine This doctrine authorizes an undercover law enforcement officer’s/informant entrance into a house at the express invitation of an individual with authority to consent to the officer’s entry. can only consent to search common areas. from the initial undercover officer. thus consent “once removed. The defendant had not consented to a search of the documents. then the third-party consent is valid. they exceeded the scope of the defendant’s consent when they read the documents. and the document search had nothing to do with the narcotics search. Rodriguez Apparent authority looks at the consent from the perspective of the objectively reasonable police officer. establish probable cause to arrest or search.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and any subsequent withdrawal of consent would be to no avail. Narrow the exclusionary rule by narrowing the reach of the fruit of the poisonous tree exception Suppress evidence that would have been obtained but for the violation Created broad exceptons Pros and Cons Pros Prevent/deterring police misconduct No incentive to violate laws because they know it won’t come in Cons Guilty people may go free Keeps jury from getting at the truth EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE….com Withdrawing Consent: An individual may withdraw consent to search at any time. If an officer finds incriminating items before consent is withdrawn. (A) NARROWING THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE 54 . Carter Withdrawal of consent alone cannot be used to support a finding of reasonable suspicion The Supreme Court has limited the exclusionary rule in two ways: 1) It has narrowed the reach of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine – the doctrine under which courts exclude evidence indirectly discovered by means of a constitutional violation. Withdrawal cannot be used to create probable cause or reasonable suspicion United States v. the plain view doctrine permits its seizure. Three limitations: a) Inevitable Discovery’ b) Independent Source c) Attenuation of the Taint 2) the Court has created several broad exceptions to the exclusionary rule itself.
com INEVITABLE DISCOVERY Rationale: to deter police from violations of constitutional and statutory protections. Segura v. arrest Segura Court said: evidence admissible because second set of officers worked entirely separately from first set of officer 55 . found items & began search. United States FACTS: Broke into Segura’s apartment. exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation because the police would have obtained that evidence if no misconduct had taken place. then the deterrence rationale has so little basis that the evidence should be received But for test… the prosecution is not to be put in a better or worse position that it would have been in if no illegality had transpired Balancing deterring illegal police activity versus the right to get this info to the jury Bad faith: police subjective intent does not matter…this would have put the police in a worse position than they would have been in if no unlawful conduct had transpired FACTS: Child abducted and murdered. Williams led investigators to the body Court said: body was inevitable discovery Inevitable Discovery Exception If the police can demonstrate that they inevitably would have discovered the evidence. Nix v. Williams surrendered. detective “interrogated” without attorney present. the exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence is admissible Analysis: Sixth Amendment violation which lead to Williams taking police to the body Exception to exclusionary rule → evidence is admissible because would have found evidence Prosecution should not be better off (deterrent effect) and prosecution should not be worse off (rogue police) INDEPENDENT SOURCE The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. obtain evidence. other officers secured search warrant. Williams Rule: If the prosecution can establish by preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means (here the volunteers search). stayed 19 hours. even without a violation of the Fourth Amendment. o Allows the admission of evidence that has been found independent of the illegal means When the challenged evidence has independent source.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.
seized marijuana Court said: marijuana evidence could be from independent source. United States Police surveillance.found marijuana. the evidence to which instant objection is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint Analysis: Constitutional violation Look at evidence in question 56 . two incriminating statements made Court said: Miranda warnings do not purge taint (not automatically. evidence that agents discovered before they obtained the search warrant would be admissible so long as the products of the illegal search were not used to obtain the warrant***** INADEQUATE CAUSAL CONNECTION . it is still admissible if it is also obtained through a source independent of the police misconduct and untainted by the illegal actions of the police The interest of society in deterring unlawful police conduct and the public interest in having juries receive all probative evidence of a crime are properly balanced by putting the police in the same. *****Thus. exclusion of such evidence would put the police in a worse position than they would have been in absent any error or violation The exception applies also to evidence initially discovered during.com Court held that the evidence found for the first time during the execution of the warrant was admissible because it was discovered pursuant to an “independent source” unconnected with the invalid entry. warrant was issued. Illinois Illegally entered defendant’s apartment. Murray v. forced entry . but considered) Whether granting establishment of the primary illegality. but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. not a worse. or as a consequence of and unlawful search. inference was not enough Independent Source Exception Even if police obtain evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment. position that they would have been in if no police error or misconduct had occurred When the challenged evidence has an independent source.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.ATTENUATION OF THE TAINT The fact that a piece of evidence would not have been found but for the violation is still admissible it is so attenuated from the constitutional violation that it is purged from the taint of the violation Evidence is admissible if the connection between the illegality and the discovery becomes so attenuated as to dissipate the illegal taint It is not a mere but-for test See rule below Brown v. lawfully entered . took him to station.
knock and announce violation Court said: violation of the knock and announce rule does not require as a remedy suppression of the seized evidence.eg voluntary confession 3) Purpose and flagrancy of the violation/official misconduct 4) Whether a Miranda warning was given…. the central benefit of the exclusionary rule. does the later provision of Miranda warnings purge subsequent statements of the taint. The relevant factors in the attenuation analysis are: 1)Temporal proximity – of the arrest and the confession 2) Any intervening events…. rather than a Fourth Amendment violation.. Hudson v.no exclusionary rule The costs of the exclusionary rule outweigh its benefits The primary cost is allowing guilty people to go free Deterring police misconduct. does not warrant its existence Civil suits for damages against the police who violate the Fourth Amendment are an adequate deterrent Increased professionalism of police forces makes the exclusionary rule unnecessary Good faith Analysis: Rule 1. court created rule to deter Fourth Amendment violations.miranda warning in itself is not enough ***Did something happen to purge the illegal taint****** Note on Miranda warnings: Miranda warnings.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Michigan Police had warrant. The Court in Oregon v. said yes.com Is it tainted by violation OR attenuated enough that it was distinguishable from the Constitutional violation The Court said: a piece of evidence that can be linked causally to the constitutional violation nevertheless may be admissible if that causal link is so attenuated that the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule would not be served by suppressing the evidence. for Fourth Amendment purposes. and particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized 57 . Elstad. knock and announce . the casual connection between the illegality and the confession Where the original violation is a failure to render Miranda warnings. Objectively reasonable reliance by a reasonable evidence. warrant is properly executed. cannot always break. alone and per se.
would have relied on the warrant. United States 58 . various visitors. Trial courts are to determined objective reasonable on a case by case basis by i) considering all of the facts and circumstances known to the individual officers involved in the case. so cannot be deter 2) Definition of good faith…an objectively reasonable officer would have believed the warrant to be valid.see bottom of page 596 United States v.com Rule 2: no subjectivity on behave of the officer Rule 3: would a reasonable well trained officer would know the warrant was invalid Rule 4: look to institutional good faith Rule 5: four instances where good faith cannot be found….Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Herring v. rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved Good Faith Exception: Suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those unusual cases in which exclusion will further the purposes of the exclusionary rule Where the officer’s conduct is objectively reasonable. police observed .Judiciary…. invalid for some reason Court said: fourth amendment violation. who possesses these facts and reasonable knowledge of what the law provides.people leaving with small packages. excluding the evidence will not further the ends of the exclusionary rule in any appreciable way Case is about: whether or not the cost of excluding evidence outweighs the benefits of excluding evidence Court looks at 2 separate matters: 1) Analysis of deterrent effects:. Leon Confidential informant of unproven reliability. flight to Miami.the majority believed no deterrent benefits could be achieved by applying the exclusionary rule in a good faith reliance situation. search warrant. but evidence not excluded Construction: The exclusionary rule is neither intended nor able to cure the invasion of the defendant’s rights which he has already suffered A judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect. drug sellers. .have no stake in the outcome. and then ii) asking whether a reasonable officer.
59 . Delaware There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. judge promised change. or as a result of the systematic negligence of their departments. controlled substances. but not removed from database Court said: fourth amendment violation. Matlock Judges can rely on hearsay evidence at suppression hearings CRIMINAL CASE EXCEPTION The exclusionary rule applies only in criminal trials Even where the rule applies. IMPEACHMENT EXCEPTION Within the criminal trial itself. rather than systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. any marginal deterrence does not pay its way Massachusetts v. Sheppard Pre-printed warrant. it requires the suppression of evidence from the trial itself. followed Herring. Rule: Whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all the circumstances Consider: knowledge experience When police mistakes are the result of negligence. Instead. officer asked about arrest warrants. Michigan The exclusionary rule does not apply if police violate the knock and announce requirement SUPPRESSION HEARINGS Franks v. and judges are permitted to consider illegally obtained evidence for sentencing purposes. pulled over vehicle and arrested him. attenuated Something more than simple negligence is needed before evidence can be excluded on the ground of apolice error. Grand juries are permitted to examine evidence that was illegally obtained. and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof United States v. none in county. outstanding warrant in computer database. searched car incident to arrest.com Gathered stuff from impound. found meth and gun (he was a felon). but evidence not excluded. but no more. but murder investigation. he did not Court said: the evidence did not need to be excluded because the officers reasonably relied on the warrant The Exception for Violations of the Requirement for “Knocking and Announcing” Hudson v. evidence that was obtained through constitutional violations may be admitted for the limited purpose of impeaching a testifying defendant. warrant had been rescinded. police must act with at least gross negligence. contacted neighboring county.
com The impeachment exception has two important limitations 1.unreasonable searches and seizures Fifth Amendment due process clause violation……voluntariness of confession…was the confession coerced? Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause violation (Miranda)…. FOURTH AMENDMENT REVIEW Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures Search or seizure is reasonable. then comports with Fourth Amendment Exceptions to warrant requirement: (do not violate Fourth Amendment) Reasonable Comports with Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment violation = excluded Narrowing doctrines: Independent source Inevitable discovery Attenuation of the taint Exception to exclusionary rule: (violate Fourth Amendment) Good faith CONFESSIONS/STATEMENTS ANALYSIS: when there is a confession. analyze all 4 Whether a confession is admissible? 1) Was there an illegal search or seizure…. 2. The impeachment must relate either to the defendant’s testimony on direct examination or to questions asked by the prosecutor on cross-examination that are reasonably suggested by the defendant’s testimony on direct examination.compelled/compulsion of confession Sixth Amendment right to counsel violation 60 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. other defense witnesses cannot be impeached with evidence suppressed by operation of the exclusionary rule. the prosecution cannot manipulate cross examination in order to get inadmissible evidence before the jury.. The impeachment exception applies only to testifying defendants.fruit of 4 amendment violation 2) Whether the statement was voluntarily made under the 5 amendment Due Process? (Two ways under the 5 admendement: due process and self incrimination) 3) Was the person compelled to make the statement in violation of the 5 amendment self incrimination clause (Miranda) 4) Was the confession taken in violation against 6 amendment right to counsel? th th th th th Four grounds to suppress confession under Constitution Fruit of Fourth Amendment violation….. That is..
Mississippi Rule: Confessions gained involuntarily through means of coercion are inadmissible as violating the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. due process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the trial court to exclude the statement from the defendant’s criminal trial. can be used in prosecution’s rebuttal if not Mirandized Compelled statements . TH 5 AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS: STATE ACTOR REQUIRED Confessions are inadmissible only if they are a product of state conduct. Protects the integrity of the courts from evidence that is revolting to the sense of justice. however.can be used for impeachment Brown v. Deters police misconduct 2.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Where a defendant’s statement is obtained by the police through means of coercion that renders it involuntary. cannot be used in prosecution’s case-in-chief or rebuttal Involuntary statements . Voices society’s disapproval for techniques so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be condemned 3.com Due Process vs. Statements can be used in prosecution’s case-in-chief only if Mirandized. Statements that are involuntary 3 Rationales for Excluding Coerced Statements under the Due Process Clause 1. may. be used for impeachment purposes. Defendants hung and whipped until confessed The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand The use of the confessions thus obtained as the basis for conviction and sentence was a clear denial of due process Confession are only admitted if it is voluntarily given The Court suggested that coerced statements may not be used for impeachment purposes……note that statements that violate Miranda. Self-incrimination Due Process Statements that are coerced (given involuntary).cannot be used for impeachment Self-incrimination Statements violate the fifth amendment selfincrimination clause if it violate Miranda warning requirement (the statements were compelled. Statements are not constitutionally excludable when obtained through private compulsion (See Connelly case below) 61 .
62 . Fulminante Fulminante had been incarcerated in prison and was approached by an undercover informant who offered Fulminante protection if Fulminante told the truth about a rumor that he killed his step daughter.com IS THE CONFESSION VOLUNTARY? The prosecution has the burden of proving voluntariness of a confession. confessed to murder The defendant was compelled by command hallucinations and the voice of God to confess Court said: no due process violation Absent police conduct causally related to the confession. the defendant’s statement was a product of free will.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. TEST: Was the statement voluntary .subjective a. Arizona v.. Coercion can be mental or physiological GOALS OF THE SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE PRONGS Reducing the risk of unreliable confessions .totality of the circumstances…. and 2) whether the coercion was sufficient to overcome the will of the accused. Was the police conduct coercive………. Fulminante then confessed.Avoid force confessions Advancing Fairness Respecting Individual Dignity and Decency Enhancing Individual Trust of Government TOTALITY TEST IN PRACTICE Use of Force and Fear The use or threatened use of force is highly determinative of involuntariness. Connelly Mentally unstable individual. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence.objective 2. the court will look at 2 facts: o o 1) whether the police subjected the defendant to coercion. Was it coercive to the point that it overborne the will of the accused such that the statement was involuntary…. Colorado v. there is simply no basis for concluding that any state actor has deprived a criminal defendant of due process of law VOLUNTARINESS STANDARD: The voluntariness standard requires a showing that under the totality of the circumstances.both subjective and objective factors 1. Under the totality of the circumstances.
and psychological profile. Spano v. Lynumn v. Leyra v. fatigue. In most jurisdictions. In determining whether such pressures overcame the defendant’s will. finally gave statement Court said: confession was coerced Defendant’s will was overborne by official pressure. a credible threat is sufficient Mental Physical Lengthy Interrogations and Deprivation of Bodily Needs Courts factor the length of the interrogation. aside from lengthy interrogations and deprivation of bodily needs may render a confession involuntary.com Court said: confession was coerced Court held that Fulminante’s confession was involuntary because there was a credible threat of physical violence such that Fulminante “will was overborne in such a way as to render his confession the product of coercion. ability to understand. and sympathy falsely aroused after considering all the facts Persistence in the face of repeated refusals to answer Ignored reasonable requests to contact attorney 2) Deception. interrogated. but constitutes one factor among many to be considered within the totality of the circumstances. courts consider characteristics such as the defendant’s age.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. police tried all kinds of tactics. Denno The Court invalidated a confession given after a suspect was subtly questioned by a state employed doctor who purported to be present in order to give the suspect medical relief. 3) Promises of Leniency Promises of leniency may also be considered in determining voluntariness. Illinois 63 . and its conditions into the totality analysis Use of Other Psychological Techniques 1) Pressure tactics: The use of psychological pressures. deception alone does not render a confession involuntary. refused to answer (advice of attorney).” A finding of coercion need not depend upon actual violence by a government agent. surrendered. New York Fought and killed guy.
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS AND THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE - No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. If the judge finds the confession involuntary. th th Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Involuntary confessions are inadmissible for any purpose. Voluntariness – Jackson Deno Hearing`` The prosecution bears the burden of establishing that a confession was voluntary by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus convicted persons who are tortured in prison may sue based on 8 amendment doctrines. In reviewing the totality of the circumstances. The trial court makes the voluntariness determination outside the presence of the jury. Martinez Coerced statements that are not introduced at trial do violate constitutional rights (substantive due process) but only if the conduct producing them shocks the conscience. the admissibility of evidence discovered as a fruit of an involuntary confession would turn on the issues of independent source. then it must be excluded. she would not be prosecuted. (Jackson v. 64 . Denno) If the judge finds the confession voluntary. but that right applies only to person actually convicted of a crime.com Lynumn denied and then admitted having sold marijuana. the Court held that Lynumns confession had been coerced. TH 8 AMENDMENT BAN ON CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT The 8 amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. inevitably discovery or attenuation of the taint. The jury will not be permitted to hear of it unless it deliberations be tainted by such powerful evidence of guilt.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. including impeaching a defendant on the witness stand. These require the claimant to allege and prove the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Assuming the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies. then the defendant must be permitted to attack its veracity in front of the jury by introducing the circumstances in which it was given Torture: Substantive Due Process ( 42USC §1983 claims) Chavez v. She stated that she believed that if she answered the questions as the officers wanted her to answer. Depending on how they say it.
cut off from the outside world Court said: compulsion discourages silence Miranda doctrine applies to a police dominated environment: Freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way The mere fact that someone is in custody and interrogated is compulsion Everyone is treated the same way. United States Defendant was questioned by police officers. must given to everyone even if someone already knows his rights…this also let the suspect know that the police knows the rights as well Purpose of Miranda? Provides procedure. detectives. Right to remain silent 2. did the defendant sign the statement? th Miranda v. Was there an interrogation? 3. so an arrest alone does not require Miranda warning. and that the defendants understand these rights? In challenging whether a Miranda was given. or prosecuting attorney. one will be appointed Class Notes: Court said Miranda is a constitutional provision …not actually in the 5 amendment Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. What constitutes custody? 2. only if interrogation happens Miranda establishes a blueprint…but left it up to the courts to fill in the gaps The only available remedy under Miranda is exclusion of the evidence (confession) Miranda is a blanket law.com The privilege against self-incrimination protects individuals from making incriminating testimonial communications under compulsion by state federal actors (police officers. Right to counsel and right to have counsel present during interrogation 4. What constitutes sufficient warning…where the suspect sufficiently warned? 4. What constitutes a valid waiver of Miranda rights? Rights under Miranda: the person must be warned in “clear and unequivocal terms” 1.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. regardless of characteristics Miranda is stated to ensure that statements are not compelled No custody and interrogation = Miranda does not apply 65 . Anything he says can or will be used against him at trial 3. detectives. Informed that if he can’t afford an attorney. prosecuting attorneys) 5 amendment self-incrimination protection protects against compelled confession/testimony th Four aspects of Miranda: 1.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Consider: 1) Police dominated area? 2) Freedom of movement restrained in some significant way? . police violated Miranda. the privilege against selfincrimination is in jeopardy He must be warned prior to any questioning that: He has the right to remain silent Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law He has the right to the presence of an attorney (Miranda created Fifth Amendment right to counsel) If he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires The individual may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement Dickerson v. statements were voluntary Court said: Miranda doctrine is a Constitutional requirement. United States Robbery. California An officer’s subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment whether the person is in custody Custody Definition: if freedom of movement is restrain in some significant way Beckwith v. federal court.com When an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is subjected to questioning.No Formal Arrest then TEST is an objective test – how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation…is his freedom of movement restrained in some significant way? .Formal arrest = in custody . not prophylactic The Court reaffirmed Miranda Stare decisis Miranda doctrine is widely practiced Congress only has authority to trump Supreme Court when using supervisory authority over federal courts. then Miranda warnings are not required. United States 66 . but Congress does not have authority to trump Supreme Court opinion Miranda was not decided according to supervisory authority Because state courts have followed the rule for two decades CUSTODY: Not in custody.The subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned in not relevant…doesn’t matter what either was thinking at the time Stansbury v.
able to leave without problem Court said: suspect not in custody. or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him in custody Jailed Suspect: .Because reporting to a probation officer does not involve a formal arrest or significant restraint on freedom (Minnesota v. United States: to be in custody requires a showing the questioning officer placed further limitations on the individuals’ freedom than were imposed by general prison condition. depending on the circumstances.Mathis v. whereas questioning in police headquarters might not. further restriction than been in custody beyond being in prison itself Probation Officer: . Miranda not required Police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. nor is the requirement of warnings to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house. not in custody. location is not determinative when deciding whether a person is in custody. Texas) . Mathiason Suspect voluntarily responded to officer’s request to answer questions. Orozco v.Traffic stops is not custody…stop is brief. The test would be whether the officer’s conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe his freedom of movement had been further diminished……that is. Murphy) Minnesota v. is not required to give the warnings called for in Miranda Custody: if freedom of movement is restrain in some significant way Traffic Stops: .Although relevant. investigating potential criminal income tax violations. Murphy 67 . Texas A person who has been arrested is in custody and Miranda warnings must be given. it will be relevant (Orozco v. in an interview with a taxpayer. even if the questioning occurs in a person’s home Oregon v.Questioning a suspect in the suspect’s own home might constitute custodial interrogation. .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. told he was not under arrest.com A special agent of the Internal Revenue Service. half-hour. in public (not police dominated environment) Location: .Location is not determinative of custody…however.Answering probation officers questions is not being in custody .
taken to room. arrest is custody. parents in lobby. answers. out of car.standard is objective and age is subjective.age becomes an objective factor when known to outside world. Alvarado: age not relevant to custody inquiry Yarborough v. police question. shoes of defendant/id?? Would reasonable person [general public] feel like their freedom of movement was significantly restricted? Berkemer v.no . Innis): .yes Age considered in voluntariness analysis Supreme Court Majority . Alvarado Parents brought suspect to police station upon officer’s request. custody more than seizure. so not in custody Is age a factor that should be considered? Court of Appeals .com Statements made in a meeting with a person’s probation officer were not uttered in a custodial context and no Miranda warnings were required Because reporting to a probation officer does not involve a formal arrest or significant restraint on freedom Age Yarborough v. in between is debatable Traffic stop Seizure Reasonable person would not feel free to leave Reasonable person’s freedom of movement is significantly restricted Because: 1) reasonable person knows a traffic stop is short in nature.yes . and 2) traffic stop occurs in public where there are witnesses and police are deterred Custody INTERROGATION: Test (Rhode Island v. police persistently question Court said: whether in custody = objective standard Age not relevant to custody inquiry…no significant restraint on freedom.Express question OR functional equivalent to express questioning (objective test) = if the officer should know that the words or actions are “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response “ 68 . Miranda Court said: driver not in custody. McCarty McCarty is driving.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. observable to world Dissent . traffic violation.
tells officer where shotgun is Court said: not interrogation The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent Any words of actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect (i. Innis Innis suspect in cab driver killing.com . th Hiibel v. According to the Court. Innis speaks. refused to speak without an attorney. officers have conversations about shotgun. the Court held that these statements were admissible because the officer comments were not likely to be perceived as calling for any verbal response. officers and suspect in vehicle. Field Sobriety Test: Field sobriety test is frequently performed by officers to establish probable cause that the arrestee is under the influence When the officer explains to the arrestee how the test would be administered and the during this process the arrestee made incriminating statements. the Court recognized that a request that the arrestee compute the date of his 4 birthday did constitute interrogation. THUS. Miranda rights.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. a “possibility” does not indicate “ a sufficient likelihood of incrimination to satisfy the legal standard articulated in Innis. functional equivalent) Arizona v Mauro The Court applied a more narrow standard than Innis.In determining whether the police should have known about the effects of their remarks. rendering inadmissible the arrestee’s inept responses. Conversation between husband and wife was not interrogation because police did not talk The Court refused to find that interrogation occurred when police attended. No Miranda warning needed if only giving explanation BUT if asking questions that are like to elicit any incriminating responses (functional equivalent of question) then Miranda warning is required. The AZ Supreme court found that the officers were aware of a possibility that Mauro would incriminate himself during the meeting. Sixth Judicial District 69 . However. Rhode Island v. and tape recorded a meeting between a woman and her husband.e.. “any knowledge the police may have had concerning the susceptibility of a defendant to a particular form of persuasion might be an important factor. who had been taken into custody for suspicion of killing their son.
then no violation These warnings must be given to all suspects who are subjected to custodial interrogation – even. Miranda requires only that the police not question a suspect unless he waives his right to counsel. if you wish. later identified as Hiibel. signing of waiver Court said: adequate warnings…. The Court affirmed the conviction and concluded that Hiibel’s giving his name under these particular circumstances would not incriminate him because it would not furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. suspect told information about murder Court said: not interrogation Miranda was not meant to protect suspects from boasting about their criminal activities in front of persons whom they believe to be their cellmates In recounting the details of the Stephenson murder. judges. and law students.as long as the rights are conveyed “We have no way of giving you a lawyer.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. “You have the right to have a lawyer appointed to represent you at no cost to yourself” The Court said that taken together. stated may have attorney. Duckworth v. The man refused 11 requests by the officer seeking the man’s name. but not attorney may be present before and during questioning Court said: adequate warnings…. 70 .. respondent was motivated solely by the desire to impress his fellow inmates Compelling = police dominated atmosphere Not present here ADEQUACY OF WARNINGS . but one will be appointed for you. the warnings conveyed…his right to have a lawyer appointed if he could not afford one prior to and during investigation.the warnings had to be interpreted as a whole…. Eagan Reading of rights. Prysock Reading of rights. if and when you go to court.” The Court approved the warning.W HAT IS REQUIRED OF THE POLICE? The suspect must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms. California v. Perkins Suspect in custody. questioning by informant. reasoning that if police cannot provide appointed counsel. juvenile.. his Miranda rights: Does not require perfection: As long as reasonable person would understand the language as conveying his Miranda rights Courts are lenient…as long as the rights are conveyed. After warning the man that he would be arrested if he continued his refusal. lawyers. the officer arrested the man. Illinois v.com An officer arriving on a scene in response to a tip asked a man on the scene for identification.
of course.. intelligent waiver Eleventh grade education..com WAIVER A suspect’s statement. show that the defendant did not voluntarily waive his privilege. but will not sign. followed closely by a statement could constitute a waiver. an express verbal waiver is not always required. Zerbst An express statement that the individual is willing to make a statement and does not want an attorney. or cajoled into a waiver will. read “Advice of Rights” form. Thus. cannot be admitted without a showing that: Valid Miranda warnings were given Defendant waived Miranda rights in fact The waiver was effective. tricked. North Carolina v. literal. Anything less is not waiver. A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings were given The record must show that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understandingly rejected the offer. Waiver in Fact A valid waiver will not be presumed simply from the silence of the accused after warnings are given or simply from the fact that a confession was in fact eventually obtained.. will talk. made during custodial interrogation. the prosecution’s burden is great. Butler….waiver in fact Issue: what amounts to a knowing. but in at least some cases waiver can be clearly inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated 71 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. standard: preponderance of evidence Johnson v. The state has burden of proof that the defendant knowing and intelligently waived his privilege against selfincrimination and his right to retained and appoint counsel . did not request counsel Court said: no waiver Mere silence is not enough The courts must presume that a defendant did not waive his rights. Lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waive his rights Any evidence that the accused was threatened..
a suspect who says nothing – literally.com Effective Waiver 1) Voluntary Waiver This is similar to voluntariness in confession cases: considering the totality of the circumstances. half-way through questioning. the admissibility of those statements depends on several factors including o The specific right that the suspect invoke The conduct of the police Whether the incriminating statements concern the offense for which the suspect invoked his right. Davis v. A suspect who says “I announce that I will not answer questions without counsel present. experience. including the background. A defendant who makes an ambiguous statement has the burden of clarity.” has effectively invoked that right. For example. a long period of time between the rendering of Miranda warnings and the waiver might suggest that the waiver was derived by overcoming the suspect’s will to invoke his Miranda rights.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. the court must find that the waiver was a product of free and deliberate choice. 2) Knowing and Intelligent Courts must decide this issue based on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the case.has not invoked his or her Miranda rights. However. “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” Court said: no constitutional violation The suspect must unambiguously request counsel He must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement as a request for an attorney Would likely apply to someone would wants to stop talking mid-stream (ambiguous) Right to Remain Silent…. United States Issue: Was statement a request for attorney? Valid waiver. and conduct of the accused. The right to remain silent is offense specific so 72 .is based on the incident…it is offense specific o If a suspect invokes his Miranda rights but later makes incriminating statements.” has successfully invoked the Miranda right to counsel. Certain facts may be especially important to the issue of the voluntariness of the waiver. The court do not look only on what was said Invocation of Miranda Rights and its Consequences: o o o o A suspect who says “I hereby invoke my right to remain silent.
exchanges. police may question him with respect to another offence. speaks to attorney. (Edwards v.see above. next day. an accused having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him UNLESS the accused himself initiates further communication. one has to unambiguously invoke this right (tell the police that I want to invoke my right to remain silent) Michigan v. another officer gave Miranda rights and questioned about murder Court said: no violation When the police want to talk to someone who has invoked their right to remain silent: Scrupulously honored Time passed New set of police officers New set of Miranda rights given New issue To invoke your right to remain silent. provided that they scrupulously honor his original decision to remain silent. AZ) This right is custody specific and extends throughout the entire incident of custody until the suspect is released. break. Mosley Questioned about burglary. Thus. or conversations with the police. Edwards v. you must have to revoke it. Arizona Suspect talked. o How to invoke ones right to remain silent….Downloaded From OutlineDepot. they police question him again Court said: constitutional violation 73 .com o Rule: even after a defendant invoked his right to remain silent. Mississippi Suspect requests attorney. asked for attorney. Right to Counsel … custody specific o o o All government questioning must cease once a suspect exercises the Miranda right to consult with an attorney. police questioned again Court said: constitutional violation When the police want to talk to someone who has invoked their right to obtain counsel: the police can only do so when: Counsel is available OR Defendant initiates Minnick v.
interrogation must cease. Bradshaw “Hey what’s going to happen to me now?” Issue: Is this initiation? YES. Elstad Statement #1 .after giving Miranda warnings again Oregon v.com When counsel is requested. police need to read rights and obtain waiver before beginning questioning Maryland v. I was there.detailed statement .” an officer may reinitiate questioning……. Statement #2 . and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody. then decides to talk/waive right. Miranda warnings effective (not fruits analysis) 74 . anything that constitutes. there is a break in custody and then questioning of the suspect can continue.police station. attorney must be there throughout the conversation Resumption of Questioning When a defendant’s statements or inquiries can reasonably be interpreted as evincing “a willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation at hand. Miranda Issue: does un-Mirandized first statement taint Mirandized second statement? Court said: statement not excluded.“Yes. o o The Court stated that the inherently compelling pressures of custodial interrogation ended when Shatzer returned to his normal like in jail. o After 14 days. SCOPE OF THE MIRANDA EXCLUSIONARY RULE: FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE Oregon v..Downloaded From OutlineDepot. “I want to talk about the case” If person invokes a right. to consult with friends and counsel. and officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present. no Miranda. Rule: The Court stated: 14 days is enough to dissipate custodial interrogation’s coercive effects and provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life.living room. Shatzer o Issue: whether the return of an incarcerated suspect to the general prison population qualifies as a break in Miranda custody that ends the Edwards presumption of involuntariness. whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney Not enough to provide an attorney.” .
“Gun is there. Patane Statement #1 . Seibert *** Police questioned suspect. Statement #2 . they did not eliminate the compulsion) Consider factors: The completeness and detail of the questions and answers in the first round of interrogation The overlapping content of the two statements The timing and setting of the first and the second The continuity of police personnel The degree to which the interrogator’s questions treated the second round as continuous with the first Distinguishable from Elstad Intent: The police had a policy to engage in this behavior Getting the suspect to confess when they likely would not have confessed if rights were made known Event of the first encounter left the individual feeling like they were compelled 75 .. physical evidence comes in Thus.no Miranda. that is. physical evidence obtained from an unwarned confession(not Mirandized) need not be excluded. the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion A subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admission of the earlier statement United States v.Downloaded From OutlineDepot.e. Missouri v. however.locate gun Issue: is the gun excluded? Court said: gun admissible Self-incrimination clause / Constitutional violation = triggered when evidence is used against you at trial Statements that violate Miranda (unwarned confession) …cannot come in. initial questioning made Miranda warnings ineffective (i.” . police questioned suspect using information from preliminary interrogation Issue: is the repeated statement admissible? Court said: statement excluded.com Absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement. read Miranda rights. non-testimonial physical evidence is not excluded because of a violation of Miranda.
weight.so statement made during the hostage negotiation gets to come in “an objectively reasonable need to uphold public safety” BOOKING EXCEPTION . Ohio Defendant’s invocation of the Miranda right to remain silent used by prosecution for impeachment: Invocation made before Miranda warning is given…. date of birth. asking for information about name.Public safety exception State v. the exclusionary rule does not apply to an un-Mirandized statement) Procedure – question first technique IMPEACHMENT Statements obtained in violation of Miranda may be used for the purposes of impeaching the defendant’s trial testimony.ROUTINE BOOKING EXCEPTION This exception permits officers to ask general biographical questions during booking or pretrial services without first giving Miranda warnings. UNDER COVER ACTIVITIES: Illinois v. age.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. TEST: Reasonable related to police administrative purposes. address. such as name..hostage situation creates public safety issues .cannot be used EXCEPTIONS TO MIRANDA…… “PUBLIC SAFETY” AND “ROUTINE BOOKING EMERGENCIES – PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION New York v. date of birth. address. (if the defendant chooses to testify at trial) Doyle v. Perkins: o Is Miranda violated when a suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement? 76 . Pennsylvania v.Statements obtained by police from suspects during emergency situations could be used against a criminal defendant even if Miranda warnings were not properly administered . Quarles . height. Finch .com Fruits analysis does not apply to Miranda (i.e. such as.can be used Invocation made after Miranda warning given …. Muniz The police can ask a person questions when taking a person into custody that are needed in the booking process. color of eyes. and weight.
Downloaded From OutlineDepot. a radio transmitter is installed in seat. explaining that conversations between suspects and undercover agents do not implicate the concerns underlying Miranda. when consultation.custody not required Adversarial process .commitment to prosecute…e. those pressures are absent.Sixth Amendment violation From the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial.right to counsel enables this right Balances the government and defendant Police could have done same actions. the defendants are as much entitled to such aid of counsel during that period as the trial itself Sixth Amendment guarantees right to a fair trial .com o The Court held that there was no Miranda violation in these circumstances. If a suspect does not know that he is in the presence of police. thorough-going investigation and preparation are vitally important. once formal judicial proceedings have begun and initiated by the prosecution by way of formal charge . Not just arrest only The accused don’t need to be in custody Massiah v.the accused shall enjoy the right to the assistant of counsel for his defense. indictment. Colson cooperates with police investigation.Ensuring counsel at trial Right to Counsel Distinctions: 5th Amendment Custody specific Any offense or topic Anytime 6th Amendment Deliberately elicited Offense Specific . o Those concerns relate to the inherently compelling pressures generated by a police dominated atmosphere. but just not introduced the evidence during the trial 77 . United States This case occurred before the Miranda case Narcotics activities. agent hears conversation with Massiah Court said: evidence not admissible . NOT POLICE DOMINATED AREA NO PRESSURE FOR COMPELLED SPEECH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL DURING INTERROGATIONS . arraignment.g.
“Christian burial speech” Court said: evidence not admissible . and who informed him that their purpose in coming was to discuss his involvement in the distribution of methamphetamine and his association with certain charged co-conspirators. Fellers statements. or “indirectly”. The Requirement of a Formal Charge: The Sixth amendment right to counsel is triggered by the initiation of adversary judicial criminal proceedings – whether by formal charge (an arrest by itself is not a formal charge) . 78 . Arrest warrant alone would not implicate the sixth amendment. by knowingly exploiting an opportunity to confront an accused without an attorney present. could not be admitted. Brewer v.Sixth Amendment violation The Court held that his statements were inadmissible because they had been deliberately elicited n the absence of his attorney and after the initiation of the criminal proceedings. information.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. had deliberately elicited his statements and thus implicated his Sixth Amendment rights. or arraignment Fellers v. must be excluded from trial. which were made outside the presence of counsel and without a waiver of his rights. indictment. deliberately elicited. United States The Supreme Court held that officers who arrived at Fellers home with an arrest warrant and an indictment. (Massiah) At the point when the state has fully committed all its resources to prosecution. Deliberate Elicitation: The Massiah doctrine (right to counsel) comes into play only where law enforcement personnel have deliberately elicited incriminating statements. Williams Attorney in Des Moines and attorney in Davenport. preliminary hearing. abductor told not to respond.preliminary hearing. A person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him whether by way of formal charge. An officer may be found to have deliberately elicited incriminating statements “directly” by engaging the defendant in conversation about the charged conduct. police told not to interrogate.com Sixth Amendment violations occur at trial Can have Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations at the same time (usually post-charges) Rule: any uncounseled statement. or arraignment. after indictment. indictment. information. thus immersing the suspect in the intricacies of substantive and procedural criminal law.
and any statements acquired in such a manner may not be admitted at a trial of the accused. his Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches. it must be invoked before it is fully effective. unambiguous. can’t question without attorney. but before it is invoked. 79 . Wilson confessed Court said: no Sixth Amendment violation. Henry confessed Court said: Sixth Amendment violation. Once right has been invoked.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Invoking right to counsel. that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks Maine v. Moulton The Court explained that knowing exploitation (even if the officers did not intentionally create the situation) by the State of an opportunity to confront the accused without counsel being present is as much a breach of the state’s obligation not to circumvent the right to the assistance of counsel as is the intentional creation of such an opportunity. the right may be waived by the defendant. Wilson Police informant (paid) – to just listen (listening post) – not soliciting. (this mirrors Miranda waiver)…preponderance of evidence standard. Iowa v. same cell. The government bears burden of proof on waiver and it must demonstrate that the defendant’s waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary and knowingly and intelligent. Nevertheless. same cell block. a defendant does not make out a violation of that right simply by showing that an informant. After the right attaches. as in Miranda.com United States v. INVOKING AND W AIVING SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS Once a defendant has been formally charged. Henry Police informant (paid). not deliberate elicitation Since the Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever the State obtains incriminating statements from the accused after the right to counsel has attached. Tovar o The Supreme Court emphasized that the extent of warnings required by the Sixth Amendment varies according to context. deliberate elicitation Informant was active participant – engage conversations Kuhlmann v. reported his incriminating statements to the police The defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action. either through prior arrangement or voluntarily. beyond mere listening. The Sixth Amendment is violated when the state obtains incriminating statements by knowingly circumventing the accused’s right to have counsel present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent.
agreed to talk. it is offense specific.com o At early stages of a criminal case. interrogation about gun’s whereabouts. 80 . a more extensive set of warnings and waivers might be required. judge ordered a public defender. and made incriminating statements. Jackson….overruled! Before arraignment . wrote apology letter. Michigan v. At later stages. confessed. preliminary hearing (72 hour) formal charge. officers approached McNeil in order to question him about a robbery at location B and read him his Miranda rights.one statement Court said: confession not admissible If police initiate interrogation after a defendant’s assertion. afterward met with attorney Court said: Jackson is overruled. Montejo v. Wisconsin McNeil was arrested for an armed robbery at location A and invoked his right to remain silent.six statements. Two days later. of his right to counsel. McNeil’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not keep out the statements regarding the robbery at location B because he did not invoke that right to counsel. The Court said that McNeil’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached with regards to the robbery at location A. at an arraignment or similar proceeding. Louisiana Waived rights.. any waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid No more questions after defendant request an attorney unless defendant initiates further communication. it had not attached to the robbery at location B because formal charges were not brought until the following day. after arraignment . He signed a waiver. requested counsel. the full dangers and disadvantages of self-representation are less substantial and more obvious to an accused than they are at trial. remanded to raise rule of Edwards Self-incrimination Custody and interrogation → read rights → assert 5th right to counsel → No initiation as long as custody Sixth Amendment Right attaches → police can always approach and initiate → but still need waiver Valid Miranda waiver will cover Sixth Amendment waiver OFFENSE SPECIFIC The Massiah’s right (right to counsel) attaches only when a defendant is formally charged with a crime. That right is offense specific and as of the time of the incriminating statements. Thus.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and it covers only communications about that particular crime McNeil v.
of course.Test: the Court clarified that by offense it meant that the charged offense plus any other crimes that would be considered the same offense for double jeopardy purposes – including.. and because murder is not the same offense as burglary for double jeopardy purposes.apply. the questioning did not violate Massiah and the confession was admissible. United States o The Court held that Feller’s Sixth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court admitted statements he made to police who came to his home to arrest him and who told him. Kansas v. Accordingly. The rule excludes only those statements relating to an offense for which the adversarial process has been initiated. and attenuation of the taint. While the Court refused to exclude the body from evidence because there was evidence that it would have been “inevitably discovered. lesser included offenses. not double jeopardy) SCOPE OF THE SIXTH AMENDEMNT EXCLUSIONARY RULE: Confessions and statements obtained in violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel are inadmissible under the Massiah doctrine. as to which the Sixth Amendment right has not yet attached. Williams Williams sought to exclude the body of the murdered girl on the ground that it was the fruit of the incriminating statements deliberately elicited in the absence of counsel after the initiation of the adversarial process.impeachment 81 . questioned about and confessed to murdering a mother and daughter Court said: confession was admissible . free on bond. . independent source.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and the traditional limitations on that doctrine – inevitable discovery. incriminating statements pertaining to other crimes.compare the two charges Different elements = not the same (i. that they were there to discuss his involvement in drug crimes. admissible at a trial of those offenses. Test: Double jeopardy – look at elements. are. Cobb………..Because the defendant Cobb had not been charged with murder. without giving him Miranda rights.e. Brewer v.same/similar offense Indicted for burglary. are they the same or similar Whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not Elements analysis . Ventris……. Rule: the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine excludes evidence discovered as a result of Sixth Amendment violations.” Fellers v.com Texas v.
low . and is infringed at the time of the interrogation (prophylactic) Tainted evidence . but confession admissible for impeachment purposes Rule: the Court held that although a statement obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment could not be used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief. but whose obtaining was constitutionally invalid . Ventris confessed. prosecution introduced evidence of holding cell confession to impeach Court said: violation has occurred. same holding cell.is admissible for impeachment Interests . Double blind testing – which means simply that the person administering the line up doesn’t know who the real suspect is. The Massiah right is a right to be free of uncounseled interrogation. Right to Counsel . 2.14 – unnecessarily suggestive .based on the totality of the circumstances was the procedure so unnecessary suggestive as to create a very substantial likelihood of (irreparable) misidentification.com Police informant.evidence whose very introduction does not constitute the constitutional violation.police misconduct IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL Suppressing Eyewitness Identifications Due Process . Sequential viewing or showing the witness only one possible suspect at a time.high .preventing perjury Deterrence . it could be used to impeach the defendant should he testify inconsistently at trial. 82 .Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Ventris lied on stand.6 – violated right to counsel But what about in court identification – is the in court identification now tainted by the out of court identification The burden is on the state to prove that it is not tainted Limitations: Timing –only after adversarial procedures have begun Types of proceedings – don’t apply to photospread th th Out of court ID Lineup Showup Photospread In court ID Suggestions for changes that have been shown to reduce the number of misidentifications: 1.
.in court id independent of lineup LIMITS ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES Illinois v.clear and convincing evidence . conducted in courtroom.com THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN LINEUPS United States v. voice) 6th Amendment right to counsel Counsel is required for lineups (critical stage) Concerned with suggestivity (physical characteristics of lineup participants. body language or facial expressions of police officers) Important confrontation takes place before trial Affords attorney information necessary to recreate the scene and identify a theory (rather than relying on cross-examination of witness) Counsel not required for forensic evidence analysis (not critical stage) Constitutional violation occurred → is in court id a result of original id or purged of taint? Whether. Wade Bank robber. the evidence of which instant objection (in court id) is made has been come at by exploitation of that illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint Factors to consider: Analysis: 6th Amendment right to counsel Right to counsel must attach Critical stage Lineups NOT photospreads The prior opportunity to observe the alleged criminal act The existence of any discrepancy between any pre-lineup description and the defendant’s actual description Any identification prior to lineup of another person The identification by picture of the defendant prior to the lineup Failure to identify the defendant on a prior occasion The lapse of time between the alleged act and the lineup identification Otherwise it’s suppressed Burden on state . appearance. lineup conducted without notifying counsel. granting establishment of the primary illegality. prior to trial Court said: vacated the conviction 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination Only applies to testimonial statements NOT identifying physical characteristics (e.g. appointed counsel.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. Kirby 83 .
Ash Armed bank robbery. Ash arrested by police. FBI show photos to four witnesses. Lineup #1 .witness on deathbed. California Armed bank robbery.com Shard robbed. was so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a very substantial likelihood of mis-id Stovall v. could not get her to prison 84 . Lineup #2 . petitioner found with Shard’s identification. prosecutor showed witness photo lineup again Court said: counsel unnecessary in photo lineup (even after adversarial proceedings) The Sixth Amendment does not grant the right to counsel at photographic displays conducted by the Government for the purpose of allowing a witness to attempt an identification of the offender Accused is not present Bring the photos to court Risk of suggestivity not great Prosecution must present case without the defense DUE PROCESS PROTECTION FOR IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES UNNECESSARILY SUGGESTIVE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS Foster v.only man from first lineup.only tall man wearing leather jacket. Shard arrived and identified petitioner Wade-Gilbert Rule A post-indictment pretrial lineup at which the accused is exhibited to identifying witnesses is a critical stage of the criminal prosecution Police conduct of such a lineup without notice to and in the absence of his counsel denied the accused his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel and calls in question the admissibility at trial of the in-court identifications of the accused by witnesses who attended the line-up No in-court identifications are admissible in evidence of their source is a lineup conducted in violation of this constitutional standard Only a per se exclusionary rule as to such testimony can be an effective sanction to assure that law enforcement authorities will respect the accused’s constitutional right to the presence of his counsel at the critical lineup Court said: will not extend rule to routine police investigations United States v. based on totality of circumstances. identified Ash as robber. positive identification only after second lineup (only Supreme Court ruling of unnecessarily suggestive id) Court said: unfair lineup procedures 14th Amendment Due Process Clause Out of court id Must suppress out of court id that. arrested and taken to station. before trial.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. one-to-one confrontation.necessary . Denno . government informant alerted authorities.
photos resulted in no identifications. Biggers Rape.com In court id Must suppress in court id that. officer leaves photo. police discovered suspect. returns to station. was so unnecessarily suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-id (more lenient) Reliability is the linchpin LIMITS ON THE ABILITY OF COURTS TO FIND THAT IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES VIOLATE DUE PROCESS Simmons v. drug sale.Downloaded From OutlineDepot. and that convictions based on eyewitness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by photograph will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irrefutable misidentification Neil v. light from doorway and moon. lineups. no Due Process violation The factors to be considered in evaluating the likelihood of misidentification include: The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime The witness’ degree of attention The accuracy of the witness’ prior description of the criminal The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation The length of time between the crime and the confrontation The corrupting effect of the suggestive id In court and out of court Manson v. showup resulted in positive identification Court said: procedures were reliable. trooper positively identifies dealer. showed to five witnesses who all identified Simmons Court said: procedures were necessary. provides detailed description. police obtained photos. no Due Process violation Reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony Apply Biggers factors 85 . no Due Process violation Each case must be considered on its own facts. Braithwaite Trooper and informant. United States Armed bank robbery. arrest Court said: procedures were reliable. showups. trooper sees dealer. detailed description. based on totality of circumstances.