Con Crim Pro

Con Crim Pro

- Plainview

- Consent

- Exigent Circumstances

- SILA

- Auto

If Constitutional violation, then suppress evidence derived from it as it is a fruit of the constitutional violation

1.Good faith reliance on bad search warrant. (Leon)

2. Good faith reliance on bad statute (Krull)

3. Good faith reliance on bad case law. (Davis)

4. Good faith reliance on error made by county clerk. (Evans)

5. Knock and announce. (Hudson v. MI)

6. Good faith reliance on bad police record keeping.

1. Reasonable Expectation of privacy (Katz- Phonebooth)

A. Actual subjective belief of privacy

B. Expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (as determined by judge)

2. Property Interest in thing searched or seized (common law trespass)- Jeep GPS

1. For an arrest a cops must have probable cause

2. For a stop a cop must have reasonable suspicion

3. For an encounter requires no evidence

1. things discarded from home. (Greenwood)

2. Dog sniff on luggage carried in airport. (Place)

3. Dog sniff

4. Search of a shed.

5. Magnified aerial photos not searches. (Dow Chemical)

Officers must generally secure a warrant before conduction a search of an individual's cell phone.

Property interest extends to the curtilage of the home. Thus, bringing drug dog to the front door of the home is a search under the 4th, and is not permissible.

GPS on Jeep was trespass of physical property; thus, a search and violation of the 4th amendment.

PC turns on (1) reliability of information (2) credibility of source/informant

Probable cause and reasonable suspicion measured by totality of circumstances.

If there is a lawful car stop and drugs are found in the car, probable cause will attach to everyone in the car.

Probable cause that certain items are the fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the crime and that these items are presently to be found a certain place.

Probable cause that a crime has been committed and that the person being arrested committed the crime.

Unless there is some exigent circumstance or compelling reason, a search warrant is required for a blood sample.

There is no preference or requirement for an arrest warrant.

Search warrant only extends to thing/person listed in warrant.

Although cops cannot search everyone inside or house/property when executing search warrant, the police can detain them.

Police can detain when executing search warrant. However, can grab suspect mile away from home then bring them back and detain them while conducting search warrant.

1. Plain view

2. Consent

3. Exigent (hot pursuit, destruction of evidence, public safety/welfare

4. SILA

5. Auto

As long as police are:

(1) position where lawfully entitled to be and

(2) readily apparent that what they are seizing is evidence of a crime,

they are entitled to seize.

SILA is a traditional exception to warrant requirement and there is no requirement that the officer have subjective fear of suspect or that suspect is armed.

Not concerned with cops judgment (or lackthereof) in arresting instead of issuing citation. SILA applies as long as arrest lawful.

Even if state statute mandates a summons, and cop arrests instead of issuing summons, arrest is good and SILA is good. It was an offense; thus SILA applies. There may be a state violation but this is not a 4th amendment violation.

SILA is not applicable where a citation is issued in lieu of an arrest.

Following a lawful arrest, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the fourth amendment.

Cops only allowed to search, person, effects and area within immediate control (lunging distance). Also, Buie 1 allows search area/room immediately adjacent.

- can look anywhere from which attack can be launched

- Limited only places where people can be

- PV Always accompanies

Officers can search anywhere in home where they have reasonable suspicion that someone else is present in home. "Who is upstairs?"

No search of home allowed when person is arrested on the doorstep.

Under the exigent circumstances rule of the 4th amendment, an otherwise unlawful search and seizure without a warrant is lawful so long as the exigencies of the situation are compelling as t make the warrantless search objectively reasonable.

To enter without search warrant, need either arrest warrant AND reasonable suspicion defendant is home, or exigent.

(That case police did not have arrest warrant)

4th amendment does not require police to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others.

Arrest warrants allow entry only into home of the person who has an outstanding arrest warrant. Does not permit entry or searches of third person's home.

1. Exigent

a. hot pursuit

b. destruction of evidence

c. public safety/welfare

2. Search warrant

3. Arrest warrant

4. Consent

Search warrant is not required to search vehicle, so long as probable cause exists. This applies to boats, airplanes, trucks- can on cinder blocks.

Police can search anywhere inside car where there is probable cause, including containers and effects within the car.

- The less police know about location of evidence and the smaller the object sought is, the broader the permissible search

Peel back broad reading of Belten. Police can search vehicle at time of arrest if:

1) if suspect unsecured + within reaching distance, or

2) Reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of the offense of the arrest

3) Or any other 4th amend exception to warrant requirement (auto exception(PC), consent)

Allows patdown of vehicle where there is reasonable suspicion of weapon. (ie see knife on seat)

Inventory allows cops to search car and trunk even if you weren't arrested for that violation.

If unreasonable search is conducted and evidence is found, but evidence would have been found inevitably, court will allow.

For officer to stop, detain, and pat-down (over clothing) an individual, officer must have reasonable articulable suspicion that:

1) Crime is, was, or will be committed

2) Specific individual is armed/dangerous

Seizure is a function of time and intensity. Need either:

A. Actual physical contact, even if unsuccessful; or

B. Actual submission to authority.

Bus case. No seizure merely an encounter.

"no application of force, no intimidating movement, no overwhelming show of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking of exits, no threat, no command, not even an authoritative tone of voice."

All persons in the car are seized when a car is pulled over. Thus, all have standing to challenge the stop.

Anonymous tip alone is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion. (Tip said suspect was armed but no evidence of weapon when approached.)

Reasonable suspicion and probable cause can rest on reasonable misunderstanding of law. (But mistake of law must be reasonable. In this case brake light was out but that was not a crime in that state.)

Unprovoked flight in a high crime area provides reasonable suspicion.

Held that a dog sniff conducted during a lawful traffic stop does not violate 4th amendment and is not unreasonable seizure.

Police can detain for as long as it takes expeditious officer to complete stop.

Dog sniff conducted 7-8 minutes after ticket was issued was unreasonable because it invalidly continued detention.

Feds take luggage send it from Laguardia to JFK, then when it hits 5 at Friday they decide they go home and get warrant on Monday. Court says unreasonable as hell.

When there is reasonable suspicion to stop car, first part of Terry is satisfied for everyone in car. Cops can then pat-down any individual they reasonable suspect to be armed and dangerous.

Allows pat down of car when reasonable suspicion to justify sweep of car. If it leads to drugs these are admissible (Note D was not secured).

Valid RS for stop/detention and Patdown. Then Cop feels something in pocket, knew it wasn't weapon but squeezes and manipulates. Because officer could tell it was not a weapon, he did not have reasonable suspicion that D was armed, and the seizure of drugs was therefore invalid.

1. Substantial gov interest

2. Special needs to enforce those interests (other than enforcement of crim law)

3. Reduced privacy interest

4. Procedure effect enough to protect those interest

Searches pursuant to enforcement of government regulations-saftey, zoning, etc.

Closely regulated businesses, which the police have the right to compel information must fall within: (1) liquor (2) firearms (3) mining (4) junkyard

1. Routine border searches allow searches of all people and mail and do not require RS or PC

2. Non routine require "real suspicion"

4th amendment does not prohibit the suspicionless search of a parolee whose release was condition on agreement to search or seizure without cause.

A probation agent's search of probationer's property (computer) satisfies the reasonableness requirement of the 4th amendment if the probation agent has "reasonable grounds" to believe the probationer's property contains contraband.

Consent is voluntary uncoerced agreement to permit search. Once given it cannot be withdrawn. We look at defendant's characteristics and government method tactics.

- Threats or use of physical force

- Promises (will depend on promise)

- Misrepresentation of lawful authority

The state attempts to justify search on the basis of consent, it must demonstrate that consent was in fact voluntary and not result of duress or coercion.

The scope of consent is defined by an objective test.

Consent valid if they reasonably believe the personwho consents to their presence has the authority to do so. This means actual authority or apparent authority. Judged on totality of circumstances

If both husband and wife at the threshold, one objects and one consents, the objector wins.

Randolph shoulder to shoulder objection only works when the objector is physically present at threshold at same time.

No reasonable expectation of privacy when you use your neighbor's internet for child porn.

Only images allowed to be seen are those that were uncovered in the original third party search. Here search exceeded the scope as there was no way to confirm the pictures she showed we the same as the one's she saw earlier.

1. Mcnabb/Mallory- prompt appearance req

2. Miranda (5th amendment

3. Massiah- Right to counsel

4. Voluntariness (5th amendment due process)

Fed rule only. Police get 6 hour safe harbor for interrogation after arrest. After 6 hours must present D to court to justify further interrogation.

1. Right to remain silent

2. Anything you say can be used in ct of law

3. Right to counsel

4. If you cannot afford attorney, one will be provided

Miranda is only triggered when we have statement made by D while in custody and while interrogated.

Custody--> Warnings--> (detours)--> Valid waiver--> Interrogation--> Statement

Arrest or its functional equivalent (somewhere between search+seizure and arrest). Custody is an objective test under Miranda and D's age can be relevant.

Car stop or terry stop is not custody.

Salinas- no custody no Miranda issue.

Express questioning or functional equivalent. Functional equivalent is statement reasonably likely to elicit incriminating statement. Further, only custodial interrogation if D knows that its custodial interrogation.

Discussion b/t cops that causes D to speak is not interrogation. (RI v. Innis)

Muniz: routine booking questions not interrogation but sixth birthday question is.

Quarles: Threats to public safety justify interrogation in the absence of valid waiver.

Valid waiver must be knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Absent express unambiguous invocation of either of these rights, police may interrogate and any responses will be treated as tacit waiver.

Silence is not asserting right to silence

Must be explicit assertion of right to counsel

Immediate cessation of questioning whether of charged crime or other unrelated crimes (Roberson).

No further questioning unless:

- D counsel present

- D re-initiates contact

- 14 days after release from custody and fresh warnings given.

Immediate cessation of interrogation.

- Suspending question entirely for significant period of time.

- Giving fresh of Miranda warnings at the outset of the second interrogation.

Miranda only applies to statements, thus physical evidence does not get suppressed. Further, violations do not occur until statements are attempted to be used at trial.

(Police start reading rights, D cuts them off- police must finish reading rights, statement suppressed but not gun)

In the event of bad Miranda preceding a valid Miranda, the first does not taint the second. Unless the was a deliberate strategy used by police.

Statement must be product of D's free will, cannot be coercion or duress. Determined by the totality of circumstances balancing D's characteristics and police tactics

- Threats, physical force, promise to keep safe: Per se violation

- Fabrication of scientific: Per se violation

- Lies/deceit non-scientific: not per se

- Age, education, demeanor (whatever relevant to mental capacity)

- Experience with police

- Anything else police find probative

Industrial strength suppression. Finding of involuntary will suppress statements and any evidence. And cannot be used for impeachment.

Burden is on gov to show that each piece of evidence it has was obtained independently from involuntarily evoked statements.

Once formal charges have been brought, defendant had the right to have attorney present when the government deliberately elicits incriminating statements regarding charged crime.

Only applies to formally charged offenses and any lesser included

Active attempts to elicit violate doctrine, but passive does not.

For Miranda D must know that they are being interrogated. Not the case for Massiah

Valid waiver of Mirada rights include within it a valid waiver of Massiah 6th amendment rights.

- Have formal charges been filed?

- Was D's lawyer present?

- Did police employ corporeal identification procedure?

If formal charges, and corporeal then need lawyer present. MUST be police procedure.

Out of court: Line-ups, show-ups, photo ID

In-Court: In Court ID

- These only suppressed if it found to be dependent on a previous unconstitutional ID

- Easy to find independent source

- Police ID unfairly suggestive?--- D's burden

- must be police procedure

- If court can show ID is reliable then its not unfairly suggestive. (Wade/Gilbert)

- Nonetheless necessary? (Stoval)---State Burden

- exigent circumstances

1. Opportunity to view

2. Degree of attention

3. Accuracy of description

4. Witness level of certainty

5. Time between crime and confrontation

Court order compelling individual to come testify as to what she might know.

- Individual must show up and answer all the questions except those which may incriminate

- Must assert 5th to each question

Show up to testify and bring toys, depending on what's named.

- 5th amendment doesn't provide protection for content

- But act of producing can, b/c this is:

1) Existence of documents

2) Authentication

3) Possion

Covers evidentiary use of client's statements and evidence derived from these statements.

- Gov must show lack of taint through independent evidence (Kastigar)

Cannot be prosecuted for any crime related to transaction or event.

Immunity only for production of documents, not for content.

Gov has independent evidence of this, dont need act of production of those docs. Basically says we already knew you had these.

1. Temporal proximity

2. Flagrancy of police misconduct

3. Intervening circumstances

Evidence is untainted because it is independent of the constitutional violation.

harris- statement taken at house uncon, then same ones at station are good.

Murray- enter without warrant see evidence, get warrant without mentioning illegal entry. Ct says good.

Although there is no independent source, tis evidence would have inevitably been discovered.