Criminal Procedure Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Outline for Professor Kreag's criminal procedure class. ...

Description

Criminal Procedure Outline

1

Table of Contents 4th Amendment, 4th Amendment Search

2

4th Amendment Seizure, Warrants

4

Probable Cause

5

Arrest Warrants

6

Search Warrants

7

Warrant Exceptions; Exigent Circumstances

8

Search Incident to Arrest

9

Cars & Containers

10

Plain-View / Touch Doctrine

12

Consent

13

Brief Investigatory Stops: The Terry Doctrine

14

Seizures: De Facto Arrests or Brief Investigatory Stops

16

Reasonable Suspicion

18

Extending Terry Doctrine

19

Special Needs Doctrine; Administrative Searches, School Searches

20

Border Searches, Checkpoints

21

Drug Testing, DNA After Lawful Arrest

22

Remedies to 4th Amendment Violations; Standing Exclusionary Rule, Limits on the Exclusionary Rule, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Invalid Warrants, Precedent The 5th Amendment; Due Process/Voluntariness

23 24 26 26

Miranda v. Arizona

27

Exceptions to Miranda, Public Safety, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

28

Constitutionality of Miranda, Waivers to Miranda, Invocation

29

Criminal Procedure Outline

2

4th Amendment Protects citizens of the United States against Unreasonable searches and seizures, and states that police cannot get a warrant to search or seize a person without Probable Cause. 

Probable Cause = reasonable search and seizure, which gives rise to warrant exceptions in certain circumstances.

4th Amendment Exclusionary Rule For a certain amount of time 4th amendment protection only applied to searches and seizures by federal actors. However, courts mandated 4th amendment protection in Mapp v. Ohio.



Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961): Officers arrested Mapp and searched her home without a warrant after she refused to let them into her apartment. The supreme court held that searching her home and arresting her without a warrant was a violation of her due process rights under the 14th amendment and therefore even state actors must abide by the 4th amendment warrant requirement. Also evidence obtained in violation of the 4th amendment must be excluded from evidence against defendant.

Rule: State and Federal Actors must abide by the 4th amendment and obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching a person’s house or seizing them or their possessions, if evidence is obtained in violation of these rules it must be excluded as evidence against defendant.

4th Amendment Search The 4th amendment protects people not places. A Search under the 4th amendment is defined by a two part test: 1. Does the person have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their actions or the location they are in? and 2. Does society as a whole reasonably believe that privacy in the above scenario is expected?  Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967): Police wiretapped a telephone booth without a warrant that the suspect used frequently. Court ruled it a search under the 4th amendment because Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy when using a telephone booth and society would reasonably believe in that expectation of privacy. Informants Use of informants or a tape recorder on an informant is not considered a search.

Criminal Procedure Outline



 

3

United States v. White 401 U.S. 745 (1971): FBI obtained information on White from an informant. Court ruled it was not a search because White took the risk of confiding in the informant and thus did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lewis: Undercover cop takes notes while talking to the D, not a search. Lopez: D talked to a wired undercover agent, not a search.

If a technique meets the definition of search or seizure under the 4th amendment then it is regulated, if a technique is neither, it is not regulated by the 4th amendment. Third Party Doctrine: Exception to the 4th amendment search. When people give information to telephone companies, internet companies, isps, etc. Often limited information so no expectation of privacy. 

Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979): Police arrested Smith after they discovered he had been harassing a woman by asking the phone company for the defendants telephone records. Court ruled not a search because the telephone company keeps track of the phone calls a person makes to charge them, so a person did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in who they called on their phone.

Dog Sniffs: Limited information obtained, so not under peoples expectation of privacy and so not a search. Caballes and Place. 

Florida v. Jardines 133 S.Ct. 1409 (2013): Police used a dog-sniff on a person’s porch to find narcotics. Even though a dog sniff itself is not a search, police used it on a Jardines porch which is considered curtilage, and thus protected under the 4th amendment, so the dog-sniff was considered a search.

Use of Technology to Search 





Kyllo v. United States (2001): Police used a thermal signature detector to search a house from the outside searching for certain spots with a higher level of heat. Court ruled using a thermal imager was a search under the 4th amendment because it obtained private information from the house that a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy over. United States v. Jones 132 S.Ct. 2038 (2012): Police placed a GPS tracker on a car, court stated car was an effect and so placing a GPS tracker on a car was technically a search of the effect and without a warrant it was unconstitutional. United States v. Karo (1984): Police placed a beeper on a container which was then sold to Karo, court ruled it was not a search because the beeper was placed on the container before Karo held it as his effect, therefore the police did not search an already owned effect and so the 4th amendment did not apply.

Searches and Curtilage: 4th amendment only protects searches of person, house and effects. A person’s field is not protected, however if someone has the expectation of privacy by perhaps

Criminal Procedure Outline

4

erecting a wall or something that is close enough to the house that it is considered Curtilage the 4th amendment provides some protections. Hester and Oliver Factors that a court considers to define a space as Curtilage: United States v. Dunn (1987) 

  

Proximity to the house o California v. Ciraolo (1986): Court found that the Defendants courtyard was curtilage and protected by the 4th amendment but taking pictures from a plain flying over was not a search because defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from aerial observation. Included in an enclosure surrounding the house Uses of the area Steps taken to prevent the area from observation

Air Surveillance: Not a Search  

Even if Defendant has a wall surrounding area to protect it from view he does not have an expectation of privacy from viewers from above. Ciraolo If retractable roof is open then it is still not a search. Riley

4th Amendment Seizure “Meaningful interference with a person’s possessory interests in the property.”  

Relates to stuff and things U.S. v. Karo, (1984): Putting a tracker in a drum or package before the D obtained it does not interfere with person’s possessory interest because the tracker was on the drum before it was the D’s and it did not seriously affect the D’s use of the drum.

Warrants Requirements    

Probable Cause Oath/affirmation Particular Description Due Process

Progression

Criminal Procedure Outline

 

5

Traditional rule is that a search without a warrant was per se unreasonable. More recent decisions focus on whether or not the search/seizure was unreasonable. o Sometimes these decisions require a warrant o Most Always Require Probable Cause.

Standards of Proof  

Probable Cause needed for Warrant or arrest Reasonable Suspicion required for Terry stop. o Minimal level of objective justification

Probable Cause Objective test, not based on Police’s subjective intent. Police used to have to rely on a two Prong test laid out by Spinelli v. United States which required 1) Underlying facts that point to the officer’s conclusion, and 2) credibility of witnesses or informants. However In Illinois v. Gates the court threw out the 2 part test and established a totality of circumstances test to establish probable cause. In other words it did not matter if the witnesses were necessarily credible what mattered is whether or not all of the facts in each case amounted in a way in which a reasonable person could believe that the person was committing a crime, or the item subject to seizure will be in the place to be searched. 

 



Brinegar v. U.S. (1949): Definition of Probable cause: Reasonable belief that 1) an offense has been committed, 2) the item subject to seizure will be found in the place to be searched. Spinelli v. U.S. (1969): 2 part test Illinois v. Gates (1983): totality of circumstances: fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found or that a crime has occurred based on totality of circumstances in each case. Maryland v. Pringle (2003): Definition 2, reasonable ground for belief of guilt.

Reasonable Suspicion < Probable Cause < More-Likely than not, or Preponderance of the Evidence In other words the police officer must have a reasonable grounds for belief of guilt, based on the totality of circumstances. Totality of Circumstances not only includes reasonable ground for belief of guilt but also the expectation of privacy involved for the suspect.

Criminal Procedure Outline

6

Defendants cannot overcome Probable Cause but they can invalidate a facially valid warrant by showing through a preponderance of the evidence that, 1. the statements made in the affidavit were made intentionally, knowingly, or with reckless regard for the truth, and 2. the false statements were necessary for the finding of Probable Cause.

Arrest Warrants An arrest is a seizure, still requires Probable Cause. If Police have Probable Cause they can arrest an individual without a warrant as long as: 1. They have Probable Cause, it is day time, and in a Public Place. Watson (1976) 2. They supply a hearing within 48 Hours in which a magistrate determines the validity of the probable cause. Gerstein (1975), McLaughlin (1991). Warrantless Arrests made not in a public place but in the privacy of the suspects home are presumptively unreasonable. Payton v. NY (1980) 1. Police cannot search house with only an arrest warrant, must have search warrant. 2. Police with Arrest warrants can presumptively enter the person’s home to arrest only if, a. They have Probable Cause to believe the individual is there, b. And only to arrest the individual, they cannot search without a search warrant. In other words Police can arrest a person in Public without an arrest warrant as long as they have Probable Cause, but cannot arrest a person without an arrest warrant in the privacy of the person’s home, even if they have probable cause. Police cannot enter a 3rd parties residence to search for a suspect that they have an arrest warrant for without a search warrant for the 3rd parties residence. Steagald v. United States (1981) Executing an Arrest Even if Police have Probable Cause and are not arresting an individual in a private place, the arrest can still be considered unreasonable if unreasonable force is used to execute the arrest. 

Tennessee v. Garner, (1985): Court found the arrest unreasonable when the Police shot the suspect dead to arrest him when the suspect fled the scene, the suspect was small and unarmed.

Reasonableness of executing an arrest is a fact intensive inquiry and the reasonableness of each case is determined by the actions and facts in each case.

Criminal Procedure Outline

7

Search Warrants Generalized Search warrants are not reasonable, must have specify the place and items that are to be seized/searched. 

Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York (1979): Magistrate signed a generalized warrant to search a porn shop and the police seized large quantities of movie. The court ruled the evidence be suppressed because the warrant did not specify which items were to be seized and because the magistrate who wrote the warrant was not a neutral party because he joined in on the search.

Knock & Announce Rule Wilson v. Arkansas (1995) For a Warrant to be reasonable police must knock and announce themselves, then wait for a reasonable amount of time before entering a residence. 

United States v. Banks (2003): Police knocked, waited 15-20 seconds before bringing the door down. The court determined that since they had a warrant and since they waited before entering they reasonably entered because the delay could have occurred while the suspect was disposing of evidence.

Exceptions: Richards v. Wisconsin (1997) Police can enter without a knock and announce rule for a limited amount of exceptions.   

Emergency circumstances / coming to someone’s aid o Need reasonable suspicion Risk that Someone will destroy evidence o Need reasonable suspicion In hot pursuit of Fleeing Suspect.

Other Rules 





Police can freeze a situation to obtain a warrant before entering and searching a house. Freezing means they can reasonably limit an individuals movement while waiting for a search warrant. Illinois v. McArthur (2001) The Scope of the Search includes any place where the described target, be it a person or contraband, might reasonably be. If Searching for a large TV, police can only search places in home where the TV could reasonably be, and not desk drawers, small cabinets, etc. o Can’t search people with search warrant for public area. Police can still use evidence obtained in a mistaken search as long as they relied on valid information and did not intentionally use mistaken information as a reason to search a

Criminal Procedure Outline

 

8

house. In other words as long as the mistake was “reasonable.” Maryland v. Garrison (1987) Police can limitedly detain individuals while searching a house. Michigan v. Summers (1981) Police cannot search people as well with a search warrant for a house. Ybarra v. Illinois (1979) They can search people when they search a house but only if they have Probable Cause for that individual person.

Warrant Exceptions 

Exigent Circumstances o Hot pursuit- Can enter a home without warrant if pursuing suspect.  Warden v. Hayden (1967): Robbery occurred and soon after Police were notified that the robber had entered a house, they rushed to the house announced their presence and entered. Court ruled that the warrantless entry was reasonably based on the situation that the police were in hot pursuit of the suspect. o Prevent destruction of evidence- Can enter a home without a warrant if the police have Reasonable Suspicion that a crime occurred and to believe that suspects are destroying evidence.  Kentucky v. King (2011): Police chased a suspect into an apartment building and knocked and announced on the wrong door which they smelled weed from. Upon knocking they heard scuffling on the other side and forced the door down. Court ruled that there was a valid exigent circumstance because police had a valid concern for destruction of evidence, as long as Police did not create exigency. In this case they did not because they did not threaten any 4th amendment violations. The fact that police entered the wrong apartment did not matter, the smell of weed gave them reasonable suspicion and the movement gave them an exigency.  Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984): Police entered home without a warrant after reports that resident was driving erratically. They claimed they had an interest in obtaining his BAC before his body processed it. Court ruled that for minor offenses most warrantless entries are unreasonable and so obtaining BAC was not a sufficient exigency, thus the entry without a warrant violated the 4th amendment. o Emergency aid

Criminal Procedure Outline

9

Utah v. Stuart (2006): Police were notified of a loud party upon arriving they noticed two juveniles drinking and followed them to the back of the house where they saw through the window a fight occurring in which several adults were restraining a juvenile. Police entered without a warrant to restrain all involved after the juvenile had swung and struck another in the room. Court ruled that this was a reasonable entry based on the circumstances and the emergency aid that needed to be given to the people in the house. o Police Created Exigencies: Police cannot enter without a warrant based on Police created exigencies which only occur when Police threaten to enter or actually enter in violation of the 4th amendment, causes an exigency to occur. Kentucky v. King (2011). 



Search Incident to arrest: o Police can search arrestee and arrestee immediate area for officer’s safety and for inventory concerns when searching a house.  Chimel v. California (1969): Police had a lawful arrest warrant for Chimel and went to his house, his wife opened the door, they arrested Chimel but then proceeded to further search the house. The court ruled that the further search was unreasonable however the police could search the arrested individual and anything in his close proximity / immediate control. o Police can do limited protective sweep of house incident to lawful arrest.  Maryland v. Buie (1990): Search incident to a lawful arrest includes a protective sweep of adjoining area of where suspect was arrested. For a protective sweep of the entire house police must have at minimum Reasonable suspicion. o Search is not limited by incident suspect is arrested for, as long as suspect is lawfully arrested search can be thorough.  United States v. Robinson (1973): Police lawfully arrested Robinson for driving without a valid drivers permit. Officer found package of heroin in Robinson’s pocket. Robinson contended that the heroin should be suppressed because search incident to a lawful arrest is meant for weapons only. Court ruled search incident to lawful arrest allows the officer to do a thorough search for several reasons; one being that suspect would be inventoried at jail anyway. o Police can search the passenger area of car because it is within the immediate vicinity of the arrestee as long as arrest is valid. Can search containers in passenger compartment, cannot search trunk.

Criminal Procedure Outline

10

New York v. Belton (1981): Using Chimel the court ruled that the passenger compartment of a lawful arrestee was in the immediate vicinity and so police could search it, they found cocaine in the jacket in the back seat.  Thorton v. United States (2004): Police can search passenger compartment of car if lawful arrestee was recent occupant of the vehicle.  Arizona v. Gant (2009): Police can search car after a lawful arrest when the car is in the vicinity of the arrestee or the police have a reasonable belief (probable cause) that evidence of the crime committed by the arrestee is in the vehicle.  Police cannot do a full search of the passenger compartment when only issuing a traffic citation and not enacting a full arrest. However they can order the driver out of the car. Knowles v. Iowa (1998)...