Quizlet PDF

Preview

Summary

vocaulary...

Description

Introduction to Criminal Justice Exam 2 Study online at quizlet.com/_2oglck 1.

Terry vs. Ohio 1968: Stop and Frisk : Probable cause is required for an officer to search the immediate persons of suspect. 4th Amen CREATED STOP -Needs reasonable articulable suspicion -Prevents Crime CREATES FRISK -Pat down of outer clothing -If stop is made, frisk is allowed -Protects Officer Chimel vs. California 1969: Search of Home - Police arresting a suspect in their home must have a warrant to search the entire home. SCOPE OF SILA Can search person and immediate surroundings in order to protect the officer and prevent destruction of evidence

2.

Weeks vs. United States 1914: Evidence seized from a private residence without a warrant is in violation of 4th amendment rights. - First attempts at exclusionary rule

3.

Mapp vs Ohio 1961: CREATED THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE : Mapp said to be housing a fugitive, asked for warrant. Illegal search and seizure and arrested her on pornographic material. STATE CITIZENS GET EXCLUSION BC THE RULE APPLIES TO EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION TO THE 4th

4.

5.

Carroll vs. United States 1925: Warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause of it containing contraband, or if car could me moved before obtaining search warrant

6.

Miranda vs. Arizona 1966: Created Miranda Rights. Waiver of Miranda must be voluntary, knowing and intelligently .Protect the suspect's Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer selfincriminating questions

7.

Ebscobedo vs. Illinois 1963: 6th Amendment Violation - Denied Right to counsel - when questions are directed at you, shift to incrimination Katz vs United States: Case involving illegal gambling via phone booths - Right to Privacy not entailed in Public space, 4th Amendment

8.

9.

Rochin vs California: 1952 Indecent Procedure - Man swallowed drug evidence, police had stomach pumped to retrieve it

10.

Florida vs. Bostik 1991: Search on bus without suspicion. Police are allowed to approach and question, however Bostik let them search.

11.

Arizona vs. Hicks: 1987 - 4th Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in PLAIN VIEW (contraband, weapon or instrument)." Gunshot in apartment led police to see stolen stereo equipment from an armed robbery.

12.

Sir Robert Peele: 1829 - "Father of Modern Policing" Metropolitan Police of London, minimum use of force

13.

Team Policing: Officers assigned within same location with border association

14.

police discretion: an officers ability to decide based on choices he/she has (use force, not use force) -Also applicable to judges and other members of CJ system

15.

intelligence led policing: gangs, undercover : policing model that has emerged in recent years which is "built around risk assessment and risk management."

16.

COP: "Community Orientated Policing" - synonymous with service and team style - police partnership with community

17.

Broken Window Theory: solved by C-O-P, a sociological theory by James Wilson that proves social disorder and sense of moral can be weakened by outside influences - if a window is broken, a criminal is more inclined to break in

18.

Silverthorne vs. U.S. 1920: Accounting books retrieved for federal tax fraud , but excluded as evidence because they were obtained without a search warrant - "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine"

19.

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally (Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs the U.S. - 1920)

20.

anticipatory warrant: anticipates future found evidence (4th amendment)

21.

probable cause (p.c.): the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed. This term comes from the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

22.

articulable suspiscion: Less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "

23.

Political Era 1840-1900: Incompetent, corrupt & abuse powers Police Appointed by Mayor No Training, No Gun No Uniforms (Only Copper Badge)

24.

Progressive Era 1990-1970: Professionalize Police Cut political ties CJ as a Course Tests to Become Cops Military Effect Structure Organized New Technology (Car & Radio)

25.

August Vollmer: Father of Modern Policing (education and administrative reform)

26.

Uniform Patrol Functions: 1. Reduce / Prevent Crime (Omnipresence) 2. Stops crime in progress 3. Promotes feelings of public safety 4. Always around

27.

Omnipresence: Can be anywhere at anytime

28.

UCR: Measured police effectiveness PROBLEMS Numbers manipulated Digression No confidence in police

29.

1960's: Transition of the Era Rising Crime Increased Fear

30.

Community Oriented Policing: Police = Order and Maintenance Diversity in Police More Training Broken Windows

31.

To Control Police: More Rules Control Digression Held Accountable

32.

Philosophy of COP: Accountable Connected to Community Problem Solver (Not crime fighter)

33.

Solution to Police Conduct: Hire diversity tolerant cops People who are educated No Agressive

34.

Problem Oriented Policing 1970-2000: Identify large community problem and find a solution Crimes caused by existing social issues SOLVE THE PROBLEM

35.

Compstat: Software showing real time data of occurring crimes --> Grouping / Locations

36.

Strategic Policing: Higher level crime, special operations

37.

Homeland Security Era 2001-Present: ILP - Intelligence Lead Policing Gathered data from wiretaps and videos Departments now share info

43.

Wolf v Colorado 1949: Physician arrested for abortion conspiracy. Illegal search & seizure. ISSUES 1. State citizens have 4th amen rights? 2. If so, do they get exclusionary rule HOLDING GIVES STATE CITIZENS 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS No, they do not get exclusion because due process does not prohibit the admission of illegally obtained evidence in state courts

44.

Bumper vs NC 1968: Police lied about having warrant. Consent must be free and voluntarily given without coercion

45.

Schneckloth vs. Bustamonte (1973): Traffic Stop, Police asks to search car, kid said yes. Found stole checks. ISSUE Was consent freely given? Do Police have to tell you you can say no? DECISION Voluntariness is decided by the jury through Totality of the Circumstance Test

46.

Stoner vc Ca 1964: Hotel clerk let police into robbers room. ISSUE Who can give 3rd party consent DECISION To give 3rd party consent you must have common authority & mutual use of property

47.

IL vs Rodriguez 1990: GF lets police into BF's apartment. GF did not have common authority. REASONABLE PERSON TEST tests for 3rd party consent

48.

Interlocutory Appeal: Must be filed before case starts or during it ASKS Higher Court: Question v Facts

49.

Georgia vs. Randolph (2006): Wife says police can search house, Husband says no. No means no if both people are present in property

50.

US v Ross 1982: Finds guy and car matching description. Finds paper sack and zip bag (heroin & cash). Paper bag = yes ... zip bag = no WARRANTLESS SEARCH -Probable cause -What they are looking for -Only looking where drugs could be WHY -Cars have quick mobility -Diminished privacy Wyoming v Houghton 1999: Created Passenger Property Rule 1. Ownership of container has never mattered 2. Passenger has diminished rights 3. Would encourage driver to hide illegals on passenger

38.

Squad Work: Cops chose to protect society and thus break a few rules "House Mouse" Someone trying to rise in line of authority follows procedure Batting Average-how many arrests you have

39.

Bailiwick Mentality: Focus on your own cases Not sharing information with other departments because it doesn't help you

40.

Fusion Centers: Information sharing center created by Homeland Security

41.

4th Amendment: • No illegal search and seizures ○ Need probable cause Warrant describe the place to be searched and items to be seized

51.

42.

Exclusionary Rule: A law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. 1. To deter police misconduct 2.Police are accountable

52.

Knowles v Iowa 1998: Iowa allows for cars to be searched during traffic stop. Law struck down, violates the 4th

53.

IL v Caballes 2005: Police are allowed to use drug dog during routine traffic stop if it is already there

54.

US v Leon 1984: Tip about drug trafficking, watches house & gets warrant (tip isn't PC - judge gave warrant anyways) Created Good Faith Exception -probable cause differs among opinions -Exclusionary rule deters police misconduct -Exclusionary Rule is a JCR

55.

MA v Sheppard 1984: Police use wrong district warrant --> Good Faith Exception, judge messed up, police didn't know

56.

57.

AZ v Evans 1995: Traffic Violation, warrant out for arrest (old warrant, never removed, lead to discovery of drugs) Clerical Error --> GFE, Drugs Valid Greenwood v CA 1988: Tip on drug trafficker, police search trash. Trash past curtilage - Legal (public area) Dissent: Gov requires trash be past **DEPENDS ON WHERE AND HOW TRASH IS LEFT

58.

MN v Dickerson 1993: Stop & frisks man coming out of crack house --> seizes crack, wasn't sure it was. FRISK IS MADE TO PROTECT OFFICER NOT CRIME -Can only seize if poses a threat (syringe) -or 100% sure what it is

59.

Inevitable-Discovery Exception:: Evidence, even if inappropriately gathered, can be used in court if it would have turned up anyways

60.

61.

62.

63.

Public-Safety Exception:: Allows authorities to conduct an initial public safety interview in order to quickly determine whether any danger to The public still exist • "Where's the gun?" Exigent Circumstances: • exceptions to the general requirement of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment searches and seizures. occur when the a law enforcement officer has a probable cause and no sufficient time to secure a warrant. Hudson v Michigan 2006: Police didn't knock and announce before entering. Knock rule is made to prevent violence, property-damage, and impositions on privacy Anticipatory Warrants: Must show (1) that it is now probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the warrant is executed.

64.

Informants: A person who gives information to another

65.

5TH Amendment: 1. Double Jeopardy - cannot be tried for the same crime twice 2. Self Incrimination - No one can be forced to witness against themselves Due Process of Law - Non one can be excluded from life, liberty and law (federal)

66.

Brown vs MS 1936: White store owner murdered, black guy tourtered for confession. Confession is invalid (coerced) physical abuse VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS SHOCKS THE CONCIOUS TEST

67.

Spano v NY 1959: An individual was accused of murdering another individual after the victim took his money from a bar. Confessed after threats. Inherent Coercion Totality of the Circumstances = Looked at all facts Confession was Involuntary Denied Use of Lawyer

68.

Inculpatory: incriminating statements

69.

Exculpatory: Statements that excuse / not guilty statements

70.

Critical Stage:: Point in the system (what ever happens right here) effects the outcome of the trial

71.

Bright line Rule: Client asks for counsel - questioning must stop - no exceptions

72.

Miranda Triggers: 1. In Custody 2. Subject to Interrogation

73.

Brewer v Williams 1977: Took inmate for drive in cop car trying to find girl's body. Didn't ask direct questions but ultimately interrogated without miranda. INTERROGATION: Any statement made in attempt to get a response. Police said he waived rights. Must show intelligently, knowingly and voluntary waiver of rights

74.

INTERROGATION:: Any statement made in attempt to get a response

75.

Nix v Williams 1984: Miranda case retried with body as evidence. Created Inevitable Discovery

76.

Inevitable-Discovery Exception:: Evidence, even if inappropriately gathered, can be used in court if it would have turned up anyway

77.

OR v Mathiason 1977: An individual confessed to the police at a patrol office. after being told he was not under arrest. Miranda Triggers NOT APPLICLABLE --> WASN'T IN CUSTODY

78.

When are you in custody?: YOU ARE ONLY IN CUSTODY IF YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO LEAVE

79.

MO v Seibert 2004: Mom sets house on fire w dead bed ridden son in it. While interrogating, police leaves and comes back 20 later for re-confession after reading miranda. "QUESTION FIRST" INTERROGATION

80.

"Question First" Interrogation Technique: If an independent event dissipates a taint, events after the break are valid Misleading No one would believe they would have the right to remain silent

81.

CO v Connelly 1986: Chronic Schizophrenic patient Confesses to Young Girl's Murder. To stand trial you must understand charges and be competent, but admiting crime does not violate due process. Coerced from self, not police.

82.

Schmerber v CA 1966: DUI & wrecks car, man doesn't want to give blood sample. Still took and used against him. Blood sample does not violate 5th amendment of self incrimination/testifying against yourself. BLOOD IS REAL EVIDENCE, NOT TESTIMONIAL 14th - No violation of justice, was in hospital 5th - self incrimination only applies to testimonial evidence 6th - did not restrict attorney 4th - PC fro DUI - Exigent Circumstance

83.

14 Amendment: due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government

84.

6th Amendment: Right to counsel Speedy & Public Trial

85.

5th Amendment: Protects against self incrimination Double Jeopardy No deprivation of life, liberty or property w/o Due Process of Law

86.

Berghuis v Thompkins 2010: Suspect in murder. Would not sign miranda slip. Read miranda warnings. SILENCE DOES NOT INVOKE 5th AMENDMENT, must be said

87.

Harris v NY 1971: Only read 3/4 of Miranda. Testimonial evidence can be used to impeach credibility as a liar but are cannot be used in trial. Created CASE IN CHEIF

88.

Exceptions to Miranda: Public Safety Exception Voluntary Reveals Info Routine Traffic Stops Undercover Cop

89.

NY v Quarels 1984: Asked criminal where gun was while in grocery store. Created Public Safety Exception

90.

Berkemer v McCarty 1984: Routine traffic stop , Man arrested for DUI- No miranda read. MISEDEMEANORS NOW REQUIRE MIRANDA TRAFFIC STOPS DO NOT REQUIRE MIRANDA

91.

Types of Plea: Guilty = Accept legal responsibility Not Guilty = Deny Legal Response No Contest Waives defense --> based on case of prosecution Plea cannot be used against you in civil court

92.

US v Patane 2004: Physical evidence obtained from unMirandized voluntary statements is admissible, although the statements, themselves may not be.

93.

IL v Perkins 1990: An undercover police agent was placed in jail with the suspect and got them to elicit incriminating statements. Valid, not coerced if person does not think is police. CAN ONLY INTERROGATE AN INMATE BEFORE CHARGES HAVE BEEN FILED (different crime)

94.

Incarcerated Suspects Entitled to Miranda?: Depends if charges have been filed Depends if they know they're talking to a police

95.

US v Jones 2012: Club owner suspected of trafficking drugs, warrant put a GPS on his car. GPS not considered a search

96.

Olmstead v US 1928: Bootlegging. Police tapped the wire of the telephone pole outside Olmstead's house. 5th - voluntarily spoke on phone 4th - no search or seizure

97.

Katz v US 1967: Gambling Info by Public Telephone FBI taps phone booth - No warrant 4th - PROTECTS PPL FROM GOV NOT PLACES

98.

2 Requirements for 4th Amendment Protection: Probable Cause Where to search & what to seize

99.

Miranda Warnings: -right to remain silent. -Anything you say can and will be used against you -right to an attorney. -If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

100.

Types of Illegal Interrogation: Physical Abuse Inherent Coercion Psychological Manipulation

101.

What is the test for 3rd party consent?: Reasonable Person Test

102.

Policing Styles: Watchman Legalistic Service

103.

Watchman Policing: A style of policing marked by a concern for order maintenance. Watchman policing is characteristic of lower-class communities where police intervene informally into the lives of residents to keep pace

104.

Legalistic Policing: Strict concern with enforcing the precise letter of the law. Legalistic departments may take hands-off approach to disruptive or problematic behavior that does not violate the criminal law.

105.

Service Policing: Helping rather than strict enforcement. service-oriented police agencies are more likely to use community resources, such as drug-treatment programs, to supplement traditional law enforcement activities than are other types of agencies.

106.

Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: SILA Plain View Consent Stop & Frisk Automobile Emergency...