case summaries

  1. ER doesnt' apply to the states b/c it isn't a C command but instead is a judicially created rule; anticommandeering principle
  2. all evidence obtained by S&S in violation of the C is inadmissible in state court
  3. in a federal prosecution the 4th bars use of evidence obtained thru an illegal search and seizure
  4. illegal arrest of D was followed by his confession..confession is suppressed b/c it was the fruit of the illegal arrest
    wong sun
  5. attentuation factors
  6. an illegally arrested D is not himself a suppressible fruit and the illegality of his detention can't deprive the gov of the opp to prove his guilt thru the intro of evidence wholly untainted by the police misconduct
  7. ER doesn't apply to suppress evidence obtained thru a violation of the K&A rule b/c doing so fails to further the purpose of the K&A and costs far outweigh the benefits

    police must wait an approp time before entering
  8. GF exception is an objective standard and police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion would deter it

    sufficient culpability required...violation of 4th doesn't automatically trigger ER
  9. allows use of evidence obtained by officers reasonably relying on SW issued and later found to be unsupported by PC...objectively reasonable reliance

    Test --> whether RPP cop would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrates authorization (ToC)
  10. to the extent that application of the ER could provide some incremental deterrent, that possible benefit must be weight against its substantial social costs....balancing test
  11. 4th protects ppl not places against unreasonable S&S

    REP in both particular individual and recognized by society is required
  12. no REP in trash placed on the curb for removal

    whatever police can see with their eyes isn't protected by REP b/c anyone else passing by could observe the same thing

    curtilage factors
  13. a person bears the risk that communications with another regarding crim activity will be transmitted electronically or otherwise

    electronic surveillance evidence obtained with an informant is admissible

    4th provides no protection to a wrongdoer's misplaced belief that a person to whome he voluntarily confesses won't be revealed
    US v. White
  14. physical invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visible inspection therefore squeezing of the bag was an unreasonable search
  15. anything a fello citizen can do the police can do w/o it constituting a search

    4th doesn't apply to observation from the airspace above a home

    DISSENT - test should be anything a fellow citizen can and acutally does do the police may also do
  16. seizure of property requires a meaningful interference with a possessory interest

    if information obtained via electronic monitoring could also be obtained thru observation then no search
  17. the use of technological devices not in use by the general public to obtain info regarding the interior of one's home, which couldn't otherwise be obtained w/o physical intrusion, constitutes a search
  18. in order for a SW based on CI tip to be valid, the CI must declare either that he himself saw or perceived the facts asserted, or that the underlying circumstances surrounding his info sufficiently demonstrate its reliability

    2 prong test --> veracity and basis of knowledge
  19. CI tip reliability measured by can be sufficient even if only info corroborated was entirely innocent

    ToC includes credibility and basis of knowledge
  20. No PC when based on guilt by association
  21. Pc to arrest all when reasonable to assume part of common enterprise

    reasonable suspicion establishes PC
  22. officer's reasonable misidentification of person doesn't invalidate an otherwise valid arrest
  23. officer's reasonable failure to realize overbreadth of warrant doesn't invalidate an otherwise valid search

    didn't know or have reason to know place inadequately described
  24. officer's don't have to K&A if there is reasonable suspicion that K&A would be dangerous or futile or would hinder effective crime investigation by allowing destruction of evidence
  25. a statute authorizing warrantless felony arrests is C

    felony arrest may be made solely on the basis of C w/o a warrant
  26. police stop need only be supported by PC and anytime commit a traffic violation the police have PC to stop you w/o violating the 4th

    subjective motives of the officer nor actions of the RPP cop in the same situation are relevant
  27. police may conduct a SIA of suspect's person for a weapon or evidence

    can't engage in full body search and area must be w/in full control of hte individual being searched
  28. once the suspect is in custody, the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate's judgment evaporate and 4th requires a judicial determination of PC as a prereq to extended restraint on liberty
  29. jurisdiction that provides a judicial determination of PC w/in 48 hours of arrest will comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein but such a hearing may nonetheless violate Gerstein if the arrested indvl can prove that his PC determination was unreasonably delayed

    if doesn't happen in 48 hours burden shifts to state to show delay was reasonable due to bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstances
  30. warranteless arrests are authorized even for offenses punishable by only a fine
  31. shooting an unarmed suspect who was attempting to flee violates 4th

    DF is only allowed to aprehend fleeing felons who police have PC to believe were dangerous to themselves or to the public
  32. an AW is required to arrest a person in his home b/c both an entry to seize property and an entry to make an arrest intrude upon the privacy of one's home

    exception for exigent circumstances
  33. no entry into T premises to make an arrest w/o a SW...AW is insufficient
  34. immediate reach searaches are allowed when an arrest is made but must be contained to any area where the police reasonably believe a weapon may be hidden and to which the D may readily obtain access
  35. the search of a house isn't incident to arrest when the arrest occurred outside the house

    SILA must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrestee
  36. police lawfully inside the premises for the purpose of making an arrest may make a protective sweep for their own protection
  37. warrantless searches of readily movable vehicles aren't unreasonable when PC supports the search

    ToC will determine if mobile home is more like a vehicle or more like a home

    fact that it is being used as a home is not alone sufficient
  38. police may search a vehicle incident to arrest ONLY IF (1) the arrestee w/in reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or (2) it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest

    otherwise need a SW or another exception
  39. privacy interests in a care are C protected however the ready mobility of the car justifies a lesser degree of protection of those interests

    vehicle exception
  40. if PC justifies the search of a lawfully stopped vehicle, it justifies the search of every part of the vehicle and its contents that may concel the object of the search

    if PC to search then no SW needed for containers
  41. police may seaerch a sealed container in a car when PC exists however PC to search the container doesn't give PC to search the entire vehicle
  42. police officers with PC to search a car may inspect passenger's belongs found in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search

    distinction b/t persons and property...irrelevant who property belongs to if in the car and PC to search car
  43. routine inventory search isn't a criminal investigation and doesn't require PC or SW...must be conducted prusuant to preset procedures which are reasonable
  44. search of the passenger compartment of a car, limited to those areas where weapon could reasonably be found, is permissible if the cop possessess a reasonable belief based on specific facts that suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of the weapon
  45. w/o any showing the particular suspect may be armed, an officer may require a person lawfully stopped to get out of the car to diminish the possiblity, otherwise substantial, that the driver can make unobserved movements
  46. mimms also applies to passengers...passengers can be asked to exit lawfully stopped vehicle even if not suspected of being armed
  47. no warrantless search of closed container even with PC (outside of car)
  48. automible exception to the warrant requirement doesn't justify search of passenger's person
    di re
  49. if police have RS that a suspect has committed or is about to commit a crime, they may stop the person, detain him briefly for questioning, and then frisk the suspect if they believe the suspect is armed and dangerous
  50. an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the CI's basis of knowledge or veracity but there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits sufficient indicia of reliability to provide RS to make the investigatory stop
  51. more than just a description of the person is required to satisfy the reliability requirement of tips to police

    no firearm exception to terry
  52. flight from police isn't indicative of wrongdoing but is certainly suggestive of such

    nervous, evasive behavior and unprovoked flight are pertinent factors to create RS of criminal wrongdoing
  53. a person may not voluntarily consent to a search of his property while he is illegally detained
  54. person isn't seized if free to leave

    arrest requires either physical force or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority
  55. passengers in vehicles subjected to traffic stop are seized
  56. brief seizure of luggage ok with RS (limited in scope and duration, can't open)

    90 min detention of personal property is unreasonable
  57. for most administrative inspections no PC is required
  58. seach must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place

    student searches
    TLO, Redding
  59. 4th doesn't prohibit a cop from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee and evidence so obtained is admissible

    RS standard in these cases would hinder the state's dual interests and increase recividism
  60. consent to a search is valide even if the consenter didn't know he could refuse

    objective reasonableness standard --> whether RPP would have understood by the exchange b/t the officer and the suspect
  61. police may not search a dwelling if there is disputed consent but also don't have to seek out an absent CT to obtain consent
  62. 6th requires federal courts to provide indigent D with appointed counsel in all serious criminal cases
    Johnson v. zerbst
  63. no fundamental right to appointed counsel imposed on the states
    betts v. brady
  64. state court felony D entitled to counsel...this is a fundamental right

    overrules Brady and inherent fairness is the basis for the new rule
  65. right to counsel for indicted supsect at lineup and other pretrial confrontations
  66. right to appointed counsel on first appeal
  67. no right to counsel on appeal for discretionary review
  68. if the D faces jail at any point int he criminal process this is a violation of the 6th and courts may not circumvent the 6th by revoking probation and enforcing a prison sentence under this circumstances

    indigent D entitled to appointed counsel at any point may be subjected to jail
  69. attachment involves appointing counsel to allow for adequate representation at any critical stage in the criminal process therefore D entitled to appointed counsel at initial hearing before judicial officer
  70. seriously deficient performance and prejudice constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and D must affirmatively show prejudice based on ToC
    strickland v washington
  71. lawyer is bound to make reasonable efforts to obtain and reivew material that counsel knows the P will probably rely on as evidence of aggravation at the sentencing

    reasonable lawyers don't rely solely on their client's understanding of evidence
  72. counsel may make certain strategic decisions w/o client's consent and when the evidence strongly supports a D's guilt it isn't unreasonable to focus on the penalty phase to minimize the criminal consequences of the evidence
  73. criminal D have C right to represent themselves at trial but b4 right is waived D must be advised of the dangers and disadvantages of doing so

    reocrd must indicate that D election to represent himself was made with full understanding and free will
  74. C doesn't permit a conviction based on a coerced confession and a confession following lengthy, continuous interrogation isn't voluntary
  75. 6th prohibits gov interrogation of D after indictment outside the presence of counsel

    NO deliberate elicitation w/o counsel present
  76. when police investigation shifts from investigatory to accusatory, the right to counsel attaches therefore any statements obtained from D in these circumstances are inadmissible

    extends the right to counsel to police interrogations before indictment has occurred (6th)
  77. absent a warning a statement is presumed involuntary

    D must be informed of rights before interrogation

    if D invokes his rights then interrogation must stop immediately
  78. second confession after being advised of rights not tainted by first confession before adequate warning, so long as knowing and voluntary
  79. invocation must be unambiguous, waiver must be knowing and voluntary, can be explicit or implied
  80. suspect who stops talking can be interrogated later
  81. suspect who asks for a lawyer may not be interrogated w/o lawyer present unless the suspect initiates further discussion
  82. a suspect's age and experience don't affect a Miranda inquiry and custody is determined by how a RPP in the suspect's situation would perceive his circumstances
  83. interrogation includes express questioning or the functional equivalent (any words/actions on the part of the cop that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response)
  84. incriminating statements made to undercover agent while in custody are admissible
  85. appropriate period of time for someone to be reacclimated to normal life is 14 days...break in custody
  86. appointment w/o request is not a presumption that subsequent waiver was involved and police may approach suspect in an attempt to get him to waive his 6th right
  87. public safety exception to Miranda
  88. after an accused meets with counsel, counsel must be present at every subsequent interrogation
  89. failure to give Miranda doesn't exclude physical evidence...only applies to testimony
  90. question first tactics frustrate the purpose of Miranda when done intentionally b/c suspect unlikely to believe that really has right to remain silent
  91. events occurring outside accused's presence doesn't affect validity of his waiver

    no duty for police to tell suspect of what is going on elsewhere and attorneys have no C right to speak with clients who haven't invoked
  92. miranda can't be superceded by acts of congress b/c requirement is C and only USSC has authority to overrule those decisions
  93. police may question material witness during medical treatment...until criminal case is initiated and a D's statements are introduced against him at trial, the SIC doesn't attach

    no 5th violation before trial
    chavez v. martinez
  94. pre-indictment interrogations violate the 5th SIC and not 6th right to counsel

    overruled Escobedo
    miles v. arizona
  95. absent a waiver, confession can't be obtained outside counsel's presence after counsel has been secured

    6th right provides assistance during interrogation after judicial proceedings have begun

    waiver requires both comprehension and relinquishment
    williams I
  96. using CI to obtain voluntary statements from D isn't unC interrogation...must show some action was deliberately taken to elicit incriminating remarks for there to be 6th violation
  97. routine police investigations before charges are brought don't amount to formal judicial proceedings and evidence obtained during this time w/o counsel present isn't excluded per se

    6th can't be used to hamper police investigations
  98. pretrial id violates DP if police suggestiveness created a substantial risk of mistaken id
  99. no right to counsel when witness views photo array
  100. an unnecessarily suggestive pretrial ID of the D need not be excluded if, under the ToC, it is sufficiently reliable

    ToC is test for admissiblity
    manson v. brathwaite
  101. when addressing a speedy trial claim, courts must apply balancing test in which the conduct of both P and D are weighed

    4 factors
    barker v wingo
  102. speedy trial inquiry must weigh the effect of the delay on the accused's defense

    such prejudice is generally presumptive

    negligence in bringing the accused to trial may warrant relief
  103. delay in bringing charge is govered by the DPC and prosecutors aren't required to immediately file charges upon the assemblage of guilt...DP requires intentional delay

    until indictment the correst analysis is under SoL
  104. conviction may be overturned if material evidence is withheld

    requires reasonable probability that result would have been different
  105. no right to trial by jury for petty offenses
  106. conviction by non-unanimous 6 person jury violates C
  107. exclusion of racial minorities from juries violates EPC
  108. captial D accused of interracial crime entitled to question jurors on racial bias
  109. exclusion of women from juries violates 6th right to have jury drawn from cross-section of the community
  110. death qualified jury doesn't violate 6th
  111. use of preemptory challenges to discriminate based on race violates EPC

    must show pattern of discrimination over multiple cases (this has been changed)
  112. sets evidentiary burden with race-based preemptory challenges

    BoP on D to show systematic use on the basis of race
  113. use of preemptory challenges to discriminate based on gender violates EPC
  114. race-based preemptory challenge rule applies to both P and D
  115. right to be present at trial
  116. an unruly D doesn't have the right to disrupt his own trial

    3 options for dealing with unruly D

    right can be reclaimed upon showing of conduct consistent with orderly courtroom decorum
  117. CC isn't violated by admission of nontestiftying co-D's confession, with proper limiting instruction
  118. admission of out of court statements under CC requires that witness be unavailable and D had prior opportunity to cross examine
  119. right to cross examine witnesses
  120. right to compulsory process such that D may use the power of the state to actually compel someone to come and testify on his behalf
  121. 5th right against coerced self-incrimination includes the right to remain silent

    applies both before and during trial

    gov may not draw neg inferences from silence
  122. D has right to present a full and complete defense including T guilt
  123. D entitled to jury instruction on presumption of innocence
  124. D guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
    in re winship
  125. improper P comments don't require reversal of a conviction unless they so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of DP
Card Set
case summaries
crim pro case summaries