Case
Issue
Rule
Powell v. Alabama
Right to counsel
In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel and is incapable of adequately defending himself, the Due Process Clause requires that effective counsel be appointed for him.
Patterson, Plaintiff v. Former Chicago Police Lt. Jon Burge
Importance of procedures
Modern case showcasing the importance of procedures.
Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago
Incorporation
The 14th Amendment prevents taking of property by the government without just compensation.
Twining v. New Jersey
Incorporation
The Supreme Court first expressly discussed applying the Bill of Rights to the states through the pr ocess of incorporation
Gitlow v. New York
Incorporation
the 1 Amendments protection of freedom of speech applies to the states through its incorporation into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Duncan v. Louisiana
Incorporation
The 14 Amendment due process guarantees the right of a jury trial in all state criminal cases which, were they th to be tried in federal court, would come within the 6 Amendments guarantee [of a jury trial].
McDonald v. Chicago
Incorporation
The right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) is a fundamental right.
Williams v. Florida
Incorporation
states need not use 12-person juries in criminal cases.
Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana
Incorporation
States need not have a unanimous jury in a criminal trial.
Whorton v. Bockting
Watershed rule
Rule must implicate "fundamental fairness and accuracy" of proceeding
Gideon v. Wainwright
Right to counsel
Criminal defendant have a right to counsel at trial in any case where the sentence potentially includes imprisonment.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP)
Katz test: Did the government action violate a person's subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy? th The 4 Amendment protects a person from search
st
th
Searches
K atz atz v. United States
(phone booth case)
y
and seizure if, under the circumstances, he has a justifiable expectation of privacy, regardless of whether an actual physical trespass occurred. Oliver v. United States
REP - Open Fields
No reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in
activities conducted outside in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home (the curtilage). The special protection of the Fourth Amendment afforded to homes and curtilage is not given to open fields and is not considered an unreasonable search.
(growing marijuana in a field hidden from the public)
United States v. Dunn
REP - Curtilage
(drugs in barn)
California v. Ciraolo
Aerial search (1000 ft.)
The question of the extent of curtilage should be resolved with reference to 4 factors: a. The proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, b. Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, c. The nature of the uses to which the ar ea is put, and d. The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. (determine by process of elimination. If it's not the house, and it's not the curtilage, then it's an open field) y
There is no REP in what a person knowingly exposes to the public
(plane in navigable airspace) Florida v. Riley (helicopter in navigable airspace)
Aerial search
K yllo yllo v. United States
Thermal imaging
(growing marijuana in attic; thermal imaging of outside of home)
California v. Greenwood
(trash can case)
The Fourth Amendment does not require the police traveling in the public airways at 400 feet to obtain a warrant to observe what is visible to the naked eye. y
y
Searches of trash
Thermal imaging of the home is an intrusion subject to 4th Amendment protection Where the government uses a device that is not in general public use to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a search and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in what a person chooses to discard. (trash)
United States v. K notts
(tracking device in vat led to cabin)
United States v. K aro
(beeper in container left on into residence)
Observation and Monitoring of public behavior
Observation and Monitoring of public behavior
y
y
y
y
y
Smith v. Maryland
(pen register case)
Observation and Monitoring of public behavior
y
y
U.S. v. Place (1983)
Drug dogs
Illinois v. Caballes
Drug dogs
The installation of a beeper in a container did not violate 4th Amendment protections. The delivery of an electronic tracking device in a container of chemicals to a buyer without th knowledge of the device does not violate the 4 Amendment (not a search because it did not reveal intimate details of the home) Pen registers do not violate 4th Amendment protections; there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in numbers dialed. An individual does not harbor a legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.
The use of drug dogs in an airport is not a search. A dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does th not violate the 4 Amendment where the dog sniff reveals no information other than the location of contraband. Conducting a dog sniff does not change the character of a traffic stop that is lawful at its inception and otherwise executed in a reasonable manner. There is no REP in possessing contraband.
(stopped for speeding, nd 2 officer brought drug dog)
The Warrant
There is no expectation of privacy when driving on public roadways. There is a lesser expectation of privacy when traveling in an automobile. The dwellings expectation of privacy did not extend to the police observation of while watching from the air. Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibits augmenting the sensory faculties of birth with technological enhancements.
Requirement
Carol v. U.S.
Probable cause
Illinois v. Gates
Sufficient belief for probable cause
(hairdresser gave
Ask whether "the facts and circumstances before the officer are such to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed." y
A magistrate may issue a search warrant if the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit indicates probable cause for the search. The
information to police)
(test: totality of the circumstances)
y
y
Aguilar-Spinelli
Sufficient belief for probable cause
Maryland v. Pringle
Sufficient belief for probable cause
(front seat passenger arrested for cocaine in back seat)
1. Veracity: is the informant credible? 2. Basis of knowledge: Did the informant obtain this information in a reliable way? (Was the informant reliable?) y
y
Whren v. United States Probable cause objective test (unmarked car; Defendant had drugs in lap)
Andresen v. Maryland
Form of the warrant
y
(real estate; officers seized extra files) Form of the warrant
(warrant didnt describe person or thing to be seized; it was in an affidavit that wasnt taken with the warrant) Michigan v. Summers
y
y
Executing a warrant
A search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. The passenger of a vehicle, even if separated from the drugs, has sufficient constructive possession of drugs located in the vehicle to give rise to probable cause for the passengers arrest. The test for probable cause is objective and focuses on whether the reasonable officer could have found probable cause under the circumstances; The subjective intent of that officer does not matter. The decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.
y
Groh v. Ramirez
veracity and basis of knowledge are highly relevant, but are not separate and necessary elements of probable cause. Standard: a fair probability o Test for probable cause: that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Replaced Aguilar-Spinelli 2-prong test with totality of circumstances to establish probable cause for obtaining a warrant.
The warrant must describe items to be seized Evidence of crimes which relate to or are relevant to proving the crime under which a warrant is issued may be validly seized under the warrant. A warrant without a description of things to be seized is invalid. (A warrant that fails to describe with particularity the person or thing to be seized i s th unreasonable and violative of the 4 Amendment.) The warrant itself must describe the things to be searched and cannot be saved because of other documents unknown to the person whose home is being searched nor available for her inspection.
Michigan v. Summers rule: officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority "to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is
conducted." Muehler v. Mena
th
Executing a warrant
It is not a violation of the 4 Amendment to handcuff residents of premises for the duration of a search of the premises for armed and dangerous individuals and contraband. Q uestioning a suspect regarding immigration status is not a separate search where doing so does not prolong the search.
(detained while house was searched; asked about immigration status while detained)
Wilson v. Arkansas
Executing a warrant knock and announce
y
(drug warrant; announce/no knock) y
A search or seizure of a dwelling that is otherwise th reasonable might violate the 4 Amendment if police officers fail to knock and announce before entering. Under some circumstances, announcement is not required since it could put officers in jeopardy when defendants are known to possess a gun
U.S. v. Banks
Executing a warrant knock and announce (note case)
Knock and announce 15 - 20 seconds is enough waiting time if officers have reason to believe that waiting longer would provide the opportunity for the suspects to destroy contraband
Hudson v. Michigan
Executing a warrant knock and announce
The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence gained after police violate the knock and announce requirement.
Maryland v. Garrison
Executing a warrant excusable mistake
The warrant requirement of the 4 Amendment requires that the place to be searched must be described with particularity to ensure a search does not become a wide-ranging, exploratory search.
rd
(3 floor apartment; searched wrong one) Los Angeles County, California v. Rettele
Executing a warrant excusable mistake
(naked couple in bed)
th
y
y
Officers searched a house on a warrant where subjects had moved three months prior to the search. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, the Fourth Amendment is not violated, even where innocent residents may experience frustration, embarrassment, or humiliation.
Exceptions to the Warrant y
Three factors to analyze exceptions to the warrant: officer and public safety, destruction of evidence, the need for a bright-line rule.
y
Use the balancing test (governmental interest v. nature of the intrusion) for the analysis of the special
needs exceptions (balancing test applies when there is no suspicion) y
TLO/Q uon test: legitimate purpose? -> justified at its inception? -> within the s cope? (useful for when a person is being targeted, whether its drug testing or reading pages)
Chimel v. California
(coins case; grab area)
K nowles
v. Iowa
(citation, no arrest)
Exceptions to the warrant requirement search incident to arrest (SILA)
Grab
Exceptions to the warrant requirement search incident to arrest (SILA)
Officers may not conduct a full search of a car and driver when the police elect to issue a citation instead of making a custodial arrest. A search incident to citation is unreasonable when officers have no reasonable belief that their lives are in danger or evidence relevant to the citation is about to be destroyed. No search without arrest.
Exceptions to the Hayden warrant - searches in hot pursuit (hot pursuit; looking for an armed man) Warden, Md. Penitentiary v.
area When there is probable cause to search and there are exigent circumstances making it impracticable to obtain a search warrant, a warrantless search is th reasonable under the 4 Amendment. A search of the entire home without a warrant is unreasonable.
y
y
y
y
Payton v. New York
(NY statute that violated const. rights; went into house without D there) Arizona v.
Hicks
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
Exceptions to the warrant - searches in hot pursuit
th
The 4 Amendment is designed to protect privacy, and a search directed at purely evidentiary objects is no more intrusive than one for instrumentalities of a crime. th As long as the requirements of the 4 Amendment are followed (i.e., probable cause and the intervention of a neutral and detached magistrate) there is no viable reason for maintaining the mere evidence limitation. th Hot pursuit is reasonable and not a 4 Amendment violation; Must be in pursuit of the suspect from the scene th
The 4 Amendment, made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment, draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.
Exceptions to the warrant - plain view doctrine (note case)
Incriminating character must be "immediately apparent."
Exceptions to the warrant - plain view doctrine (note case)
Examples of the exception 1. Police have a warrant to search a given area for specified objects, and in the course of the search
come across some other article of incriminating character 2. Where the initial intrusion that brings the police with in plain view of such an article is supported, not by a warrant, but by one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement, the seizure is also legitimate. (police come inadvertently come across evidence while in "hot pursuit" of a fleeing suspect) 3. An object that comes into view during a search incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in scope under existing law may be seized without a warrant. 4. Where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Horton v.
California
(rings case)
Exceptions to the warrant - plain view doctrine
Minnesota v. Dickerson Exceptions to the warrant - plain view (crack rock in pocket doctrine during pat down; plain touch)
Plain view doctrine Seizing property not specified on a warrant but in plain view is permissible. There is no danger of officers using specific warrants or exigent circumstances to conduct general searches because the scope of the search is proscribed by the warrants description of the place to be searched or the exigencies which justify the intrusion. y y
y
Carroll v. U.S.
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile (note case)
California v. Carney
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile
(motor home; sex for drugs)
Establishes the plain touch or plain feel doctrine If an officer lawfully pats down a suspects clothing and feels an object whose contour or mass makes its identity immediately apparent, there has been no invasion of the suspects privacy beyond that already authorized by the officers search for weapons. The officer cannot manipulate the item to determine it is contraband. Its incriminating nature must be immediately apparent Must have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of crime in automobile search an automobile
y
y
a motor home qualifies as a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. The reasons the automobile exception applies to motor homes: 1. Autos are inherently mobile and can be taken away before a warrant is issued 2. Autos, unlike homes, are subject to regulations that lower the owners expectation of privacy.
California v. Acevedo
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile
(officers watched D put a bag of marijuana in trunk)
Police officers may search closed containers within an automobile without a warrant, pursuant to a valid search of the vehicle. (i.e., the police may search without a warrant if their search is supported by probable cause)
New York v. Belton
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile SILA
Thornton v. United States
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile SILA
Belton rule applies to "recent occupants" of cars.
Arizona v. Gant
Exceptions to the warrant - automobile SILA
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Exceptions to the warrant - inventory search (special needs)
The Fourth Amendment permits a routine police inventory search of the closed glove compartment of a locked automobile
(suspended license; cocaine in pocket of jacket in back seat) South Dakota v. Opperrman
Per se rule allowing search of passenger compartment and any containers. An extension of Chimel (grab area)
(impounded car; found marijuana in glove box) Illinois v. Lafayette
(arrestee in booking; drugs in cigarette box)
United States v. FloresMontano
Exceptions to the warrant - inventory search (special needs)
y
It is reasonable, as part of the routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person. Police may search any container or article in his possession, in accordance with established inventory procedures.
Exceptions to the warrant - border crossings
The Government's authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at the border includes the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel tank.
Exceptions to the warrant - border crossings
International mail may be searched when there is reasonable cause to suspect that there is merchandise being imported contrary to law.
(border search; 81 lbs of marijuana in gas tank) United States v. Ramsey
y
(heroine by mail) United States v. Montoya-Hernandez
(alimentary drug smuggler; drug mule)
Exceptions to the warrant - border crossings and checkpoints
y
The detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the
y
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal. Reasonable suspicion is required to go beyond the scope of the search
Exceptions to the warrant - checkpoints
Brief suspicionless seizures at highway checkpoints for the purposes of combating drunk driving and intercepting illegal immigrants are constitutional.
Exceptions to the warrant - checkpoints
Highway checkpoints for illegal drug activity are virtually
(sobriety checkpoint) City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
(vehicle narcotics checkpoint) Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Exceptions to the warrant - consent
indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, violating the Fourth Amendment. (look at intent)
y
(driving brothers car) y
Georgia v. Randolph
Exceptions to the warrant - consent
y
(separated spouses) y
United States v. K nights
Exceptions to the warrant - a person on probation
(probation; G & E fire)
y
y
y
Samson v. California
Exceptions to the
y
The State has to prove that consent was voluntary based on the totality of circumstances, but it does not have to prove that the suspect knew of his right to refuse consent. Whether consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined by the totality of the circumstances, and while the persons knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent. A physically present co-occupants refusal to allow entry prevails, and renders the warrantless search unreasonable and invalid as to him. Nothing independent of one co-occupants consent like need for protection inside the house justifies the search. No more than reasonable suspicion is needed to
search a probationers home. (less than reasonable suspicion might be enough, also.) th The 4 Amendment does not limit searches pursuant to such probation condition to those with a probationary purpose. Probation, like incarceration, is a form of criminal sanction imposed by a court upon an offender after a verdict, finding, or plea of guilty. Inherent is the very nature of probation is that the probationers do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled. th
The 4 Amendment does not prohibit a police
(parolee in possession of Meth)
warrant - a person on parole y
officer from conducting a suspicionless search of a parolee. Reasonableness is determined by balancing the degree to which a search intrudes upon an individuals privacy against the degree to which the search promotes legitimate government interests. Parolees are on a continuum of state-imposed punishments, and have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation.
Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco
Special needs administrative searches
y
y
(Defendant refused inspection of house) y
New York v. Burger
Special needs administrative searches
(auto junkyard) Safford Unified Sch. Dist. #1 v. Redding
Special needs - drug testing
(13-year-old suspected of giving out Ibuprofen)
Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton
Administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses fall within an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. y y
Reasonable suspicion of danger (risk vs. intrusion) Reasonable suspicion that student hiding evidence or contraband in undergarments o Scope: Means must be reasonably related to objectives of the search o Not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
Special needs drug testing
Taking into account the decreased expectation of privacy, the relative unobtrusiveness of the search, and the severity of the need met by the search, we conclude Vernonia's Policy [authorizing random urinalysis drug testing of students who participate in the District's school athletics program] is reasonable and hence constitutional.
Special needs drug testing
The district's requirement that all students who participate in competitive extracurricular activities submit to drug testing serves the School District's
(athlete urine test; parents refused to consent)
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of
Where a citizen refuses to admit a housing inspector into his home, the inspector must get a search warrant to inspect the dwelling. Probable cause for the search warrant to inspect a building for code violations exists if reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area inspection are satisfied with respect to the building Probable cause need not depend upon specific knowledge of the conditions of the particular building.
important interest in detecting and preventing drug use among its student so it is constitutional.
Pottawatomie County v. Earls
(extracurricular activities urine test) Ferguson v. City of Charleston
Special needs drug testing
Drug testing pregnant women when they enter the hospital is unconstitutional because the purpose of the drug test is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.
Special needs employer searches
A government employer's warrantless search is reasonable when conducted for non-investigatory, work related purpose or (legitimate purpose) for the investigation of work related misconduct if 1. It is justified at its inception 2. Measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search (scope) 3. Not excessively intrusive in light of the circumstances giving rise to the search. (scope) (same language as TLO) Legitimate purpose? -> justified at inception? -> within scope?
(drug testing pregnant patient hospital program) O'Connor v. Ortega
y
y
City of Ontario v. Quon
Special needs employer searches
A search motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose, and not excessive in scope, is reasonable and not a violation of an employee's 4th Amendment rights.
Warrantless entry exigent circumstances
An important factor to be considered when determining whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is made.
(SWAT member and text messages; pen register)
Welsh v. Wisconsin
(wrecked car in open field; driver walked home) Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart
(police peer through back window; injured juvenile, 4 adults restraining her)
Warrantless entry exigent circumstances
y
y
Police may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Emergency aid exception
Michigan v. Fisher
Exigent circumstances
(broken stuff outside; defendant inside screaming and throwing things)
If it is objectively reasonable to believe that another person in the home or the enrage d person is in danger, then an officers warrantless entry is reasonable and no warrant is required.
Seizures and Arrests
Arrests require probable cause, but a person may be stopped with only reasonable suspicion. United States v. Watson
Seizures and Arrests Is a warrant needed for arrest?
United States v. Mendenhall
When is a person seized?
A warrant is not necessary for a police officer to make an arrest in a public place, so long as he has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed. y
(airport; consented strip search) y
California v. Hodari C.
When is a person seized?
(ran when he saw police; threw drugs)
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
y
(suspended license; SILA -> crack)
A seizure occurs when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen. Until the person has actually been literally restrained somehow, no seizure occurred.
For what crimes may a person be arrested?
If an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed even a very minor offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.
For what crimes may a person be arrested?
When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety.
(woman driving with unbuckled kids) Virginia v. Moore
y
A person has been seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Factors to consider: The threatening presence of several o officers, The display of a weapon by an officer, o Some physical touching of the person of the o citizen, or The use of language or tone of voice o indicating that compliance with the officers request might be compelled.
Stop and Frisk
Terry v. Ohio
The authority for police to stop and frisk
(guys casing store)
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial
Dist. Court of Nevada
(stopped on side of the road, suspected of domestic violence) United States v. Arvizu (minivan stopped at border)
Alabama v. White
(anonymous tip; police stopped car, found marijuana) Florida v. J.L.
(anonymous tip that person would be carrying a gun) Illinois v. Wardlow
(police caravan in neighborhood; defendant ran when he saw the police)
An officer needs reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. If a request for identification is "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified" the stop, then a person must provide the information. Police may ask, and the person must provide, identification (at least a name) Reasonable suspicion may be determined by the totality of circumstances. Police may consider facts susceptible of o innocent explanation. Need particularized and objective basis o Inferences from specific facts based on o officers experience and training. Police may rely on informants (even anonymous ones) Less demanding in quantity and quality of information than for probable cause. ( Gates light) Predictive information strengthens tip An informants tip must contain predictive information A generalized anonymous tip is insufficient for reasonable suspicion. Courts refuse to create a firearms exception. Officers may detain a person trying to avoid a police officer in a high crime area. y
y
What may police do when they stop an individual?
y
y
What is sufficient for reasonable suspicion? for stopping cars
What is sufficient for reasonable suspicion? based on informants tips
y
y
y
y
What is sufficient for reasonable suspicion? based on informants tips
y
y
y
Reasonable suspicion on a persons trying to avoid a police officer
United States v. Sokolow
Reasonable suspicion based on profiles
(black jumpsuit with gold chains; Miami to Hawaii)
y
y
Reasonable suspicion based on a profile does not detract from the evidentiary significance as seen by a trained agent. Profiles may establish reasonable suspicion.
Exclusionary Rule Hudson v.
Michigan
Weeks v. United State
The origins of the exclusionary rule
Mapp v. Ohio
The origins of the exclusionary rule
The exclusionary rule does not apply to a violation of the knock-and-announce rule Applies the exclusionary rule to federal cases
Applies the exclusionary rule to the states
Who can object to the introduction of evidence and raise the exclusionary rule? Jones
Rakas v. Illinois
Minnesota v. Carter
Brendlin v. California
y
Who can object to the introduction of evidence and raise the exclusionary rule? Who can object to the introduction of evidence and raise the exclusionary rule? Who can object to the introduction of evidence and raise the exclusionary rule?
y
y
y
y
y
If a person is legitimately on the premises at the time of the search, then that person can object to the evidence. th The person objecting must be the one whose 4 Amendment rights were violated. Overturned Jones. Mere visitors do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in someone elses home. No REP, no violation When a car has been stopped, the passenger is likewise seized and can challenge the constitutionality of the stop.
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule Murray v. United States
Independent source
(police illegally entered warehouse, saw marijuana, then re-entered with search warrant and seized drug)
y
y
y
Nix v. Williams
Inevitable discovery
(guy tells cop where little girls body is so she can have a proper Christian burial)
y
y
y
Brown v. Illinois
(officers in apartment; Mirandized 2 times; confessed)
United States v. Leon
(facially valid search warrant; narcotics found) Herring v. United States
Inadequate Causal Connection Attenuation of the Taint
The good faith exception
The good faith exception
Allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation. The "independent source" exception to the exclusionary rule may justify admitting evidence discovered during an illegal warrantless search that was later "rediscovered" by the same team of investigators during a search pursuant to a warrant obtained immediately after the illegal search. Key question: was the source truly independent? If the police can demonstrate that they inevitably would have discovered the evidence, even without a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule does not apply and the evidence is admissible. Unconstitutionally obtained evidence may be admitted at trial if it inevitably would have been discovered in the same condition by an independent line of investigation that was already being pursued when the constitutional violation occurred. Prosecution has the burden of proving inevitability by the preponderance of the evidence.
Miranda warnings, by themselves, do not necessarily purge the taint of an illegal arrest. Brown factors: o Miranda warnings; o Temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession (time gap); o The presence of intervening circumstances (tend to be of the defendants actions); o The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct; o The voluntariness of the statement o The burden of showing admissibility rests on the prosecution. When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted in objectively reasonable reliance on the subsequently invalidated search warrant. The exclusionary rule only applies to police conduct that is deliberate or reckless or grossly negligent, or the result of systemic department y
y
y
(neighboring county didnt update records; invalid warrant)
y
violations. (the Barney Fife exception) Evidence will not be excluded when the violation is the result of isolated negligence apart from the arrest.
Police Interrogation and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
Voluntariness is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
The length of the interrogation Whether Defendant was deprived of basic bodily functions The use of threats or force Psychological pressure tactics Deception The age, level of education, and mental condition of a suspect
(note case)
A confession should not go to the jury unless it appears to the court to have been voluntary
Bram v. United States
(note case)
Brown v. Mississippi
The Requirement for Voluntariness
Involuntary confessions violate the privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment Confessions gained involuntary are inadmissible as violating the 5th Amendment's privilege against selfincrimination.
Hope v. People of
Territory of Utah
(tortured by mob and deputy until he confessed) Jackson v. Denno
Determining Whether a Confession is Voluntary
Crane v. K entucky
Determining Whether a Confession is Voluntary
Arizona v. Fulminante
The Use of Force and Threats of Force
(killed step-daughter in AZ; informant said he would provide protection if he confessed to informant) Spano v. New York (boxer took Ds money; D goes home, gets gun, and kills boxer)
The prosecution has the burden of proving a confession is voluntary in order to admit it into evidence. Even if the judge deems the confession to be voluntary and it is admitted, a defendant still can argue to the jury that the confession was obtained under circumstances and conditions that make it unreliable. A confession obtained after a defendant is physically coerced or threatened with physical force is not voluntary. A finding of coercion need not depend upon actual violence by a government agent; a credible threat is sufficient. Coercion can be mental as well as physical y
y
y
Psychological Pressure Tactics
y
y
Confessions procured through the use of psychological pressure may not be admitted into evidence. Petitioner's will was overborne by official pressure, fatigue and sympathy falsely aroused after considering all the facts in their post-
Leyra v. Dennis
Deception
Frazier v. Cupp
Deception (note case)
Payne v. Arkansas
The Age, Level of Education, and Mental Condition of a Suspect (note case) The Age, Level of Education, and Mental Condition of a Suspect (note case) The Age, Level of Education, and Mental Condition of a Suspect (note case) Condition of a Suspect
Culombe v. Connecticut
Crooker v. California
Colorado v. Connelly
(voluntarily walked up to uniformed officer and announced killing a woman)
indictment setting. Telling a suspect that his accomplice has already confessed is not deception requiring suppression of a confession. An officer acting as a friend to a suspect and expressing sympathy for his or her plight is not deception requiring suppression of a confession. In finding a confession involuntary, the Court stressed that the suspect had a fifth-grade education
The Court emphasized that the suspect was illiter ate and of low intelligence
The Court noted that the suspect had completed a year of law school
y
A confession is to be deemed involuntary, regardless of the defendant's mental condition, only if it is the product of police misconduct. o Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not "voluntary" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. o The taking of respondent's statements, and their admission into evidence, constitute no violation of that Clause.
Fifth Amendment Limits on In-Custodial Interrogation: Miranda v. Arizona y
Unwarned statement -> leads to witnesses o
y
y
Unwarned
statement -> later statement (after new warnings)
o
Exclusionary rule does not apply (Oregon v. Elstad )
o
Exception: Govt deliberately evades Miranda (Missouri v. Seibert)
Unwarned statement -> physical evidence o
y
Exclusionary rule does not apply (Michigan v. Tucker )
Exclusionary rule does not apply (U.S. v. Patane)
Involuntary statement -> statements, physical evidence o
Exclusionary rule applies, subject to exceptions such as attenuation of the taint.
Miranda v. Arizona
(man was interrogated in special room, not told about rights) Dickerson v. United States (man made statement at an FBI field office when interrogated, but before Mirandized) Chavez v. Martinez
Miranda v. Arizona and Its Affirmation by the Supreme Court
Miranda v. Arizona and Its Affirmation by the Supreme Court
(note case)
y
y
y
y
Orozco v. Texas
When is a Person In Custody? (note case)
Oregon v. Mathiason
When is a Person In Custody?
(Police questioned D at station without Miranda; D confessed; police let him leave; police later arrested D)
y
y
y
y
y
Beckwith v. United States
When is a Person In Custody? (note case)
Minnesota v. Murphy
When is a Person In Custody? (note case)
y
y
A person must be advised of his rights before interrogation.
Miranda is a constitutional rule and may not be overruled by an Act of Congress.
Four justices: No violation of Miranda unless the confession is admitted at trial. Five justices: Miranda is a rule concerning police behavior under the Fifth Amendment. A person who has been arrested is in custody and Miranda warnings must be given, even if the questioning occurs in a persons home. A person who is free to leave is not in custody and no Miranda warnings are required. Any interview of one suspected of a crime by a police officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the fact that the police officer i s part of a law enforcement system which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a crime. Police officers are not required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question. Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on a persons freedom as to render him in custody. A special agent of the IRS, investigating potential criminal income tax violations, in an interview with a taxpayer, not in custody, is not required to give the warnings called for in Miranda v. Arizona. Statements made in a meeting with a persons probation officer were not
Stansbury v. California
When is a Person In Custody? (note case)
y
y
Yarborough v. Alvarado
When is a Person In Custody?
(17 ½-year-old boy questioned at station while parents waited in the lobby)
Berkemer v. McCarty
y
When is a Person In Custody?
(man stopped for erratic driving; admitted drinking a couple of beers and smoking a few joints) Rhode Island v. Innis
y
y
y
What is an Interrogation?
(Defendant killed a cab driver and robbed another at gunpoint; hid gun by school for handicapped kids; told cops where gun was)
y
y
y
y
Arizona v. Mauro
What is an Interrogation? (note case)
y
y
Illinois v. Perkins
What is an Interrogation?
y
uttered in a custodial context and no Miranda warnings were required. An officers subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment whether the person is in custody. The initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned. Voluntariness of a statement depends on whether the defendants will was overborne. The determination of whether a person is in custody is an objective one, not a subjective one focusing on the individuals or the officers state of mind. Ordinary traffic stops do not require Miranda warnings. The noncoercive aspect of ordinary traffic stops prompts us to hold that persons temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not in custody for the purposes of Miranda. Must be "express questioning" or "functional equivalent" Test: words or actions that "police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" (it's an objective test; the reasonable officer) Intent/motive of police does not matter under this test. Guilt trip by officers in front seat of patrol car. It would be a shame if a little girl at the (handicap) school found the gun and hurt herself. The purpose of Miranda is to protect against coercive government action. Here the wife spoke to her husband (not government action) An undercover law enforcement officer must not give Miranda warnings to an
(undercover agent and cellmate got information; didnt Mirandize him) y
California v. Prysock
(kid Mirandized; later mom asked if he could have a lawyer) Duckworth v. Eagan (D signed form that said cant afford a lawyer now, but one would be provided for court) Oregon v. Elstad
What is Required by the Police?
y
y
What is Required by the Police?
y
y
What of the Consequences of a Violation of Miranda?
(In his living room, D admitted being at the house of a burglary; Mirandized, then made and signed a statement)
y
y
y
Missouri v. Seibert
What of the Consequences of a Violation of Miranda?
(Murder suspect questioned, Mirandized, questioned; confessed at first questioning, made process illegal)
United States v. Patane
(D stated he knew his rights,
y
y
What of the Consequences of a Violation of Miranda?
y
incarcerated suspect before asking him questions that may elicit an incriminating response. No Miranda warnings were required because it was not a police-dominated atmosphere. Exact language is not required for a valid Miranda warning. Warnings must reasonably convey to a suspect his Miranda rights. Exact language is not required for a valid Miranda warning. Warnings must reasonably convey to a suspect his Miranda rights.
Absent deliberately coercive or improper tactics in obtaining the initial statement, the mere fact that a suspect has made an unwarned admission does not warrant a presumption of compulsion. A subsequent administration of Miranda warnings to a suspect who has given a voluntary but unwarned statement ordinarily should suffice to remove the conditions that precluded admissions of the earlier statement. First step is voluntary, then Miranda, then question: the first statement is out, but the subsequent statement is in. Midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and unwarned confession does not effectively comply with Mirandas constitutional requirement and a repeated statement after a warning is inadmissible. Interrogate, confess, warn, interrogate violates Miranda Deliberate attempt to evade o Miranda through continuous interrogation Violations of Miranda result in testimony (verbal statements) being suppressed, but does not apply to
would not let officers finish the warnings; told police location of the gun)
y
physical evidence retrieved as a result. th The 5 Amendment applies to selfincrimination by testimony. It does not apply to evidence.
Miranda exceptions *
Impeachment
Harris
*
Emergency
v. New York
*
Booking
Impeachment Exception to Miranda
(undercover offcer testified to Ds narcotic sales)
New York v. Quarles
*
Statements gained from a criminal defendant are admissible for impeachment purposes if the defendant chooses to testify at trial. Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so. But that privilege cannot be construed to include the right to commit perjury. Public safety exception Statements obtained by police from suspects during emergency situations could be used against a criminal defendant even if Miranda warnings were not properly administered. Police officers may ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety. Objective test: Reasonable o officer test Routine booking questions are not considered interrogation (administrative, not investigatory) the slurred speech that was evident on the videotape did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination because it was not testimonial. Silence is not enough to constitute a waiver. Express written or oral statement can be strong proof. Waiver may be express or implied. The totality of the circumstances approach is adequate to determine whether there has been a waiver even when interrogation of juveniles is involved. y
y
Emergency Exception to Miranda
(rapist in supermarket)
y y
y
Pennsylvannia v. Muniz
Booking Exception to Miranda (note case)
y
y
North Carolina v. Butler
What is Sufficient to Constitute a Waiver?
(D said he understood Miranda, but wouldnt sign a waiver) Fare v Michael C.
y
y
y
(note case)
Waiver
Colorado v. Connelly
(note case)
Moran v. Burbine
(note case)
Miranda protects defendant from government coercion but goes no further than that. Events occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right. Defendants sister had hired him an attorney without his knowledge and he waived his right to remain silent. y
y
Spring v. Colorado
(note case)
y
y
Michigan v. Mosley
How
is a Waiver After the Assertion of Rights Treated?
y
(D arrested for one crime, invoked right to counsel; later he was questioned for another crime)
The police have no duty to inform a suspect of the nature of the crime for which he or she is under suspicion. The additional information could affect only the wisdom of a Miranda waiver, not its essentially voluntary and knowing nature. Police may resume questioning of a suspect for a separate crime after the passage of significant time, giving a new set of Miranda warnings, and questioning is restricted to the crime that had not been subject of the earlier interrogation.
Test: was the suspects right to cut off questioning scrupulously honored? If the defendant invokes the right to counsel, then the police cannot initiate further interrogation unless the suspect initiates the communications. y
Edwards v. Arizona
How
is a Waiver After the Assertion of Rights Treated?
(man invoked right to counsel; a day later he was questioned again) Michigan v. Jackson
(note case)
Minnick v. Mississippi
How
(after invoking right to counsel and meeting with attorney, he was questioned by police without attorney there; he confessed) Davis v. United States
How
is a Waiver After the Assertion of Rights Treated?
is a Waiver After the
If the police initiate interrogation after a defendant's assertion, at arraignment or similar proceeding, of the right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. When counsel is requested, interrogation must cease, and officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney.
y
The suspect must unambiguously
Assertion of Rights Treated? (man being questioned about murder on a navy base never overtly asked for counsel)
y
Maryland v. Shatzer
Waiver exception
y
(2 ½ years after being questioned for sexually abusing his 3-year-old and invoking right to counsel, he was questioned again and confessed) Berghuis v. Thompkins
Waiver exception
y
(man provided with written and verbal Miranda; man did not say he was invoking his right to remain silent, but didnt say much during questioning)
y
y
request counsel. After a knowing and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights, law enforcement officers may continue questioning until and unless the suspect clearly requests an attorney. Once a person has invoked the right to counsel, police questioning must cease. This expires after 14 days.
The invocation of the right to remain silent must unambiguous. Prosecution must show defendant understood the right to remain silent. After that, an uncoerced statement is admissible. (uncoerced = voluntary)
The Sixth Amendment and the Right to Counsel and Police Interrogations
Gideon v. Wainwright
Right to Counsel During Interrogation
Massiah v. United States
Right to Counsel During Interrogations
(criminal agrees to wear wire to talk to D after D invoked right to counsel)
y
y
y
y
Escobedo v. Illinois
Right to Counsel During Interrogations (note case)
y
th
The 14 Amendment imposes a duty on the states to grant defendants the th rights enumerated in the 6 Amendment, specifically the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. th The 6 Amendment right to counsel applies whenever a person is questioned after adversarial proceedings have begun. Incriminating statements made by a Defendant may not be used against him. Police may not cause to be done what they themselves may not do. The Court extended the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to those who were questioned by the police but
y
K irby v. Illinois
Right to Counsel During Interrogations (note case)
Brewer v. Williams
Right to Counsel During Interrogations
y
y
(Christian burial speech)
y y
Texas v. Cobb
Right to Counsel During Interrogations The Right to Counsel is Offense Specific
y
y
y
Montejo v. Louisiana
Is waiver valid if police initiate?
y
y
United States v. Henry
What is Impermissible Police of Statements?
y
(incriminating statements made to cell mate/paid police informant) y
K uhlmann v. Wilson
What is Impermissible Police
y
had not yet been formally charged. Decided before Miranda th The 6 Amendment right to counsel at police identification procedures (such as a line up), applies only after the initiation of formal adversarial proceedings whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment information, or arraignment. th Defendant was deprived of his 6 Amendment right to counsel when officers discussed the case of a missing girl in front of the defendant and caused him to confess and lead them to the girls body. right to counsel at pretrial o stage is critical. Christian burial speech Not an interrogation, but deprivation of counsel th The 6 Amendment right to counsel is personal to the defendant and specific to the offense. Blockburger test: does each offense require proof of a fact which the other does not. (burglary and kidnapping) th When the 6 Amendment right to counsel attaches, it does encompass offenses that, even if not formally charged, would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger test. Waiver possible even if defendant invokes sixth Amendment right to counsel and police initiate questioning Edwards still applies if right to counsel under Fifth Amendment is involved. Intentionally creating a situation likely to induce defendant to make incriminating statements without the assistance of counsel, is a violation of th Defendants 6 Amendment right to counsel. Government informant cannot initiate conversation A defendant does not make out a
th
of Statements? (incriminating statements made to cell mate/police informant) y
y
violation of his 6 Amendment rights simply by showing that an informant reported his incriminating statements to the police. The defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks. Government informant can keep his ears open
Right to Counsel Argersinger v. Hamlin
th
5
Requires custody Interrogation Not offense specific
When the Right to Counsel Applies
Amendment
y
Absent a knowing and intelligent waiver, no person may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony, unless he was represented by counsel at his trial
th
6 Amendment Initiation of judicial proceedings Deliberate eliciting of statements Offense specific
