-
Purpose of 4th Amendment
provides protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
-
reasonable expectation of privacy
government search interferes w/ the individual's interests that are normally protected from the government examination
-
Arizona v. Grant
warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, except when certain exceptions apply
-
warrant requirements
- based on oath or affirmation
- supported by probable cause
- particularly describe the place
- signed by a neutral and detached magistrate
-
two standards of proof
- Reasonable Suspicion: hunch based on specific facts
- Probable Cause: a reasonable amount of suspicion supported by strong circumstances
-
Exceptions to warrant
- Stop and frisk
- Searches incident to arrest
- Exigent Circumstances
- Plain View Doctrine
- Automobile searches
- Check Points
- Consent
-
government officials examination of and hunt for evidence on a person or in a place in a manner that intrudes on reasonable expectation of privacy
Search
-
Situations in which police officers use their authority to deprive people of their liberty or property and which must not be unreasonable according to the 4th amendment
seizure
-
three forms of seizure
- arrest
- property taken away
- stop
-
Miranda warnings
Prior to any interrogation in custody a person must be warned: right to remain silent, statements may be used against you in court, right to attorney, either retained or appointed
-
Miranda v. Arizona
supreme court devised procedures to assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the fifth amendment to the constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself
-
When is Miranda required
- Custody: freedom of movement limited to an extent associated with a formal arrest
- Subject to Interrogation: verbal statements, explicit questioning that may lead to incriminating statements
- Government Agent: yes
-
Howes v. Fields
No Miranda warnings required in jail interrogations
-
The exclusionary rule
any evidence obtained in violation of 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment is inadmissible
-
Mapp v. Ohio
Any evidence obtained by search and seizure in violation of the constitution is inadmissible in state court
-
Exceptions to exclusionary rule
- Good Faith exception
- Inevitable discovery
-
function of the courts
- norm enforcement
- dispute processing
- policy making
-
Who is the fact finder in criminal trial
jury
-
adversarial setup
contest between accuser and accused; judge is the referee
-
inquisitorial setup
criminal trial is an continuing investigation, judge is impartial inquisitor
-
role of accuser in adversarial
state: "continuance" of private vengeance.
-
role of accuser in inquisitorial
state: in "substitution" of private vengeance
-
how is truth determined in adversarial
Arising from competition in trial- result: legal truth
-
how is truth determined in inquisitorial
arising from continuing investigation before and during trial. End result: factual truth
-
power in adversarial
shared
-
power in inquisitorial
concentrated in Judge
-
level of cooperation in adversarial
neither expected nor required
-
level of cooperation in inquisitorial
a bit expected, not required
-
trier of fact in inquisitorial
judge
-
who has the burden of proof
prosecutor
-
prosecutor's dilema
upholding justice v. pressing charges vigorously
-
why score-keeping mentaliy
- measure of success
- career advancement
- campaigns for reelection
-
whats the principle of legality
Every case has to be brought before a court
-
View of William Blackstone
better that ten guilty persons escape that one innocent suffer
-
Defense dilema
protect rights of defendant v. violating ethical and moral standards
-
types of defense
- Private: law firm
- Public: public defender, assigned counsel, contract
- pro se: defend yourself
-
why plead guilty
- tired of being locked up
- legal funds run out
- reduced sentence
- mental impairment, coercion, duress
- fear of additional charges
-
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
state prosecutor can threaten additional charges defendant does not plead guilty to original charged offense
-
going rate
local view of proper sentence for crimes in a county
-
when does plea bargaining usually occur
after arraignment and before trial
-
Criticism of plea bargaining
- accused skips ajudication
- no determination of legal guilt
- right to trial in penalized
- innocent people are pressured
- prosecutor assumes position of fact finder
- negotiations are conducted in private
-
jury selection
voir dire: peremptory challenges or challenges for cause
-
6th amendment
for all criminal prosecutions, speedy trial by impartial jury of state and district
-
why is jury passive
no right to ask questions , investigate, or notes
-
problem areas of jury
- jury of impartial not peers and underrepresentation of minorities
- Peremptory challenges
- Evidence presented in illogical order
- prejudice and bias
- Jury instructions
|
|
