case summaries

ER doesnt' apply to the states b/c it isn't a C command but instead is a judicially created rule; anticommandeering principle

all evidence obtained by S&S in violation of the C is inadmissible in state court

in a federal prosecution the 4th bars use of evidence obtained thru an illegal search and seizure

illegal arrest of D was followed by his confession..confession is suppressed b/c it was the fruit of the illegal arrest

attentuation factors

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

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

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

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)

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

4th protects ppl not places against unreasonable S&S

REP in both particular individual and recognized by society is required

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

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

physical invasive inspection is simply more intrusive than purely visible inspection therefore squeezing of the bag was an unreasonable search

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

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

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

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

CI tip reliability measured by ToC...info can be sufficient even if only info corroborated was entirely innocent

ToC includes credibility and basis of knowledge

No PC when based on guilt by association

Pc to arrest all when reasonable to assume part of common enterprise

reasonable suspicion establishes PC

officer's reasonable misidentification of person doesn't invalidate an otherwise valid arrest

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

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

a statute authorizing warrantless felony arrests is C

felony arrest may be made solely on the basis of C w/o a warrant

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

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

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

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

warranteless arrests are authorized even for offenses punishable by only a fine

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

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

no entry into T premises to make an arrest w/o a SW...AW is insufficient

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

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

police lawfully inside the premises for the purpose of making an arrest may make a protective sweep for their own protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mimms also applies to passengers...passengers can be asked to exit lawfully stopped vehicle even if not suspected of being armed

no warrantless search of closed container even with PC (outside of car)

automible exception to the warrant requirement doesn't justify search of passenger's person

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

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

more than just a description of the person is required to satisfy the reliability requirement of tips to police

no firearm exception to terry

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

a person may not voluntarily consent to a search of his property while he is illegally detained

person isn't seized if free to leave

arrest requires either physical force or where that is absent submission to the assertion of authority

passengers in vehicles subjected to traffic stop are seized

brief seizure of luggage ok with RS (limited in scope and duration, can't open)

90 min detention of personal property is unreasonable

for most administrative inspections no PC is required

seach must be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place

student searches

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

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

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

6th requires federal courts to provide indigent D with appointed counsel in all serious criminal cases

no fundamental right to appointed counsel imposed on the states

state court felony D entitled to counsel...this is a fundamental right

overrules Brady and inherent fairness is the basis for the new rule

right to counsel for indicted supsect at lineup and other pretrial confrontations

right to appointed counsel on first appeal

no right to counsel on appeal for discretionary review

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

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

seriously deficient performance and prejudice constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel and D must affirmatively show prejudice based on ToC

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

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

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

C doesn't permit a conviction based on a coerced confession and a confession following lengthy, continuous interrogation isn't voluntary

6th prohibits gov interrogation of D after indictment outside the presence of counsel

NO deliberate elicitation w/o counsel present

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)

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

second confession after being advised of rights not tainted by first confession before adequate warning, so long as knowing and voluntary

invocation must be unambiguous, waiver must be knowing and voluntary, can be explicit or implied

suspect who stops talking can be interrogated later

suspect who asks for a lawyer may not be interrogated w/o lawyer present unless the suspect initiates further discussion

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

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)

incriminating statements made to undercover agent while in custody are admissible

appropriate period of time for someone to be reacclimated to normal life is 14 days...break in custody

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

public safety exception to Miranda

after an accused meets with counsel, counsel must be present at every subsequent interrogation

failure to give Miranda doesn't exclude physical evidence...only applies to testimony

question first tactics frustrate the purpose of Miranda when done intentionally b/c suspect unlikely to believe that really has right to remain silent

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

miranda can't be superceded by acts of congress b/c requirement is C and only USSC has authority to overrule those decisions

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

pre-indictment interrogations violate the 5th SIC and not 6th right to counsel

overruled Escobedo

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

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

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

pretrial id violates DP if police suggestiveness created a substantial risk of mistaken id

no right to counsel when witness views photo array

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

when addressing a speedy trial claim, courts must apply balancing test in which the conduct of both P and D are weighed

4 factors

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

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

conviction may be overturned if material evidence is withheld

requires reasonable probability that result would have been different

no right to trial by jury for petty offenses

conviction by non-unanimous 6 person jury violates C

exclusion of racial minorities from juries violates EPC

captial D accused of interracial crime entitled to question jurors on racial bias

exclusion of women from juries violates 6th right to have jury drawn from cross-section of the community

death qualified jury doesn't violate 6th

use of preemptory challenges to discriminate based on race violates EPC

must show pattern of discrimination over multiple cases (this has been changed)

sets evidentiary burden with race-based preemptory challenges

BoP on D to show systematic use on the basis of race

use of preemptory challenges to discriminate based on gender violates EPC

race-based preemptory challenge rule applies to both P and D

right to be present at trial

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

CC isn't violated by admission of nontestiftying co-D's confession, with proper limiting instruction

admission of out of court statements under CC requires that witness be unavailable and D had prior opportunity to cross examine

right to cross examine witnesses

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

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

D has right to present a full and complete defense including T guilt

D entitled to jury instruction on presumption of innocence

D guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

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