up to 6th Amendment
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapp v. Ohio | Incorporated 4th Amendment into the states; overrules Wolf, that says this is not a fundamental right; Affirmed Weeks
🗑
|
||||
| Mapp v. Ohio Reasons for deterrence: Requires: Companion case: | Reasons for deterrence: Judicial Integrity & Professionalize police force;
Requires Reasonable, Well-Trained Officer;
Companion case: MA v. Shephard
🗑
|
||||
| Leon froze development of PC, why? | Froze development of PC because only talking about Bare Bones; Exclusionary rule applies to deter police officers alone, allowed to rely on good faith that they have a proper warrant
🗑
|
||||
| Krull | GF reliance on legislation -- NO ER (must be patently unconstitutional for ER to be applied)
🗑
|
||||
| Leon | GF reliance on magistrate -- No ER
🗑
|
||||
| Evans/Herring | GF reliance on court employees -- no ER
🗑
|
||||
| Leon, other officers | GF reliance on other officers -- Information/Bad Faith imputed to other officers, ER APPLIED
🗑
|
||||
| Varnado | cops wrote down the wrong address, but went to right house -- No ER`
🗑
|
||||
| Hensley | Flyer/Bulletin for an arrest, had reasonable suspicion to stop, had PC -- NO ER
🗑
|
||||
| Whiteley | Arrest warrant broadcast over the radio, officer in another jurisdiction hears this and makes arrest, NO PC -- ER APPLIED
🗑
|
||||
| In LA, Longlois Mathieu Bickham | Longlois (ER applied, unlawful seizure);
Mathieu (No ER, outside jurisdiction arrest);
Bickham (No ER, outside parish);
--ER is only applied when fundamental rights are violated, statutory rights are not included
🗑
|
||||
| exceptions to the GF exception | -Affiant misleads the magistrate;
-Judge abandoned judicial role;
-Affidavit so lacking in PC as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;
-Warrant is facially deficient that the executing officers can't reasonably presume valid
🗑
|
||||
| Affidavits, federal | -If merely negligent misinformation -> NO RETEST;
-If intentional misleading information -> take misleading information out and RETEST (Franks)
🗑
|
||||
| Affidavits, LA | -If merely negligent misinformation -> RETEST;
-If intentional misleading information -> QUASH
🗑
|
||||
| Standing, fruit of poisonous tree, FEDERAL | -Rakas -> Standing allowed if you have poss'ry interest, LEP req'd, Olson/Carter;
-Wong Sun -> Fruit of PT -> Attenuation of taint not ‘But For’;
--is evidence obtained by exploitation of violation? inadmissible;
--to exclude must be fruit of your tre
🗑
|
||||
| Standing, Federal, 4 ways to wash the taint: | -Attenuation;
-Live witnesses;
-Independent source -> other officers;
-Inevitable Discovery (Nix v.Williams)
🗑
|
||||
| Standing, fruit of poisonous tree, LA | -Automatic standing for anyone who is adversely affected by evidence obtained (Cullotta);
-Fruit/PC used to get warrant -> warrant washes taint;
-evidence from violation of LF’s rights to get PC for warrant to search BF’s house, BF evidence admissible
🗑
|
||||
| Katz | subjective expectation of privacy & one that society is prepared by society as reasonable (objective)
🗑
|
||||
| Reasonable searches must have: JAE | Justification (PC);
Authorization(warrant/exigency)-> per se unreasonable;
Execution (knock & announce) ->Hudson (don't exclude for knock & announce violations)-> Winston v. Lee (unreasonable execution due to the surgery to find bullet)
🗑
|
||||
| What is Exigency? | not officer-created exigency (Vale);
loss or destruct of evidence -> Schmerber (due to the inherent nature of it, blood processing alcohol);
Hot Pursuit -> escaping suspect;
Safety of Officers;
Danger to public;
Domestic Abuse -> per se
🗑
|
||||
| What is NOT a search? | Open Fields Doctrine (Oliver), look to curtilage factors -> In LA, it is plain view analysis;
Dunn -> Curtilage (4 factors);
Brisban -> not a search if you are where you are lawfully there;
Florida v. Riley (Helicopter case)
🗑
|
||||
| Open Fields Doctrine | Oliver -- not a search in open fields, look to curtilage factors;
In LA, it is plain view analysis and depends on whether an officer is at a place where he is lawfully allowed to be… “lawfully present”
🗑
|
||||
| Curtilage | Dunn -> Curtilage (4 factors)
-Proximity of land to home
-Enclosure
-Nature of use to which the area is put
-Steps taken to protect the land in question for observation
🗑
|
||||
| Brisban | not a search if you are where you are lawfully at, are allowed to walk up to the porch
🗑
|
||||
| Florida v. Riley | Helicopter case -- when you are lawfully allowed to be, it is a not a search
🗑
|
||||
| When is an enhanced search a search? K | Kyllo
-Technology is not in common use;
-If it could not have been obtained w/o physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area;
-Obtained information from inside the house that is not visible to the naked eye
🗑
|
||||
| When is an enhanced search a search? R | Rabb -- can’t dog sniff at homes (NOT SCOTUS)
🗑
|
||||
| Informants | Predictive + verifiable + known informant = sufficient corrob'n for PC (Draper);
quality/tip -> totality of circumstances using 2 pronged Test (Gates);
Indicia of Reliability
-Florida v. J.L.
-Jernigan, LA -- public safety exception to RS
-AL v. Whi
🗑
|
||||
| Draper | Predictive information that guy would be walking fast—verifiable information & known informant—considered sufficient corroboration to rely on for probable cause
🗑
|
||||
| Gates | For quality/tip, look at ToC using 2 pronged test for Informants (Veracity/reliability + Basis/knowledge) -> can look at totality, don't need to satisfy both prongs;
Overturned Aguilar-Spinelli Test (said need to satisfy both prongs)
🗑
|
||||
| Indicia of Reliability | Florida v. J.L.;
Jernigan, LA;
AL v. White
🗑
|
||||
| Florida v. J.L. (indicia) | No RS (not known informant, anonymous tip is not enough to search, must corroborate the information and use a balancing test with public safety concerns) -> guy sitting at bus stop, caller had only clothes description
🗑
|
||||
| Jernigan, LA (indicia) | Found RS, gun involved, public safety exception to reasonable suspicion, lowers the bar to gain RS -> in light of J.L. may still stick to this ruling, could still be reasonable suspicion due to the lowering of the burden of RS
🗑
|
||||
| AL v. White (indicia) | They had Reasonable suspicion to stop (police were told that suspect would be carrying brown attaché, police follow and see suspicious movements)
🗑
|
||||
| Warrant Requirements | Horton v. CA -- list specific items, scope
Shadwick -- don't need judge
Barrilleaux (LA)-- 4 corners
Franks -- deliberate falsehood not just negligence
Rey and Lehnen (LA)-- intentional lie quashed warrant
🗑
|
||||
| Horton v. CA (WR) | list specific items (i.e. the smallest) SCOPE
🗑
|
||||
| Shadwick (WR) | Don’t need to be a judge to issue a warrant, must be a magistrate
-Must be neutral and detached magistrate
🗑
|
||||
| Barrilleaux (LA) (WR) | four corners doctrine -> Everything related to PC must be on affidavit but can withhold informant’s identity -> can include a telephone transcription
🗑
|
||||
| Franks (WR) | Must be deliberate falsehood—OR—reckless disregard for truth
-Negligence not sufficient to rebut the presumption of validity
🗑
|
||||
| Rey and Lehnen (LA) | intentional falsehood by police = quashed warrant
🗑
|
||||
| Searches Incident to arrest | Rawlings -> “Incident” = PC to arrest
🗑
|
||||
| Houses | Chimel -> “Arms-Reach” Rule, lawful to search within AIC (wingspan) of arrestee;
Maryland v. Buie -> Protective sweep of homes for officer safety
🗑
|
||||
| Chimel | Houses;
“Arms-Reach” Rule, lawful to search within the area in immediate control (wingspan) of the arrestee
🗑
|
||||
| Maryland v. Buie | Houses;
Protective sweep of homes for officer safety, neither PC or RS required
-Must have articulable facts that someone dangerous is inside the house
-Only allowed to look in places where people would reasonably be
🗑
|
||||
| Cars | NY v. Belton -- overruled by Gant (could search entire car using Chimel rationale);
Thornton -- expanded Belton (no Chimel rationale);
Main Principle—CURRENT-Arizona v. Gant—2 prong test (either or)
🗑
|
||||
| NY v. Belton | CARS
overruled by Gant (could search entire car using Chimel rationale)
🗑
|
||||
| Thornton | CARS
expanded Belton (there was no Chimel rationale)
🗑
|
||||
| AZ v. Gant | CARS;
Main Principle—CURRENT;
2 prong test (either or);
-Can search if D is unrestrained & reasonable distance to passenger compartment
-Can search if articulable suspicion of evidence related to crime they were pulled over for
🗑
|
||||
| Scope of the Search | Ybarra & Horton
🗑
|
||||
| Ybarra | SCOPE OF THE SEARCH
Search warrant for a place or particular person does not give police authorization to search others without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that they are dangerous
🗑
|
||||
| Horton | SCOPE OF THE SEARCH;
items must be particularly listed on warrant, smallest items restrict the scope of the search
🗑
|
||||
| Knock-and-Announces cases | Wilson v. AR - 3 excep to k&a;
need RS, Richards v. Wisky;
reasonable time, US v Banks;
Hudson - violation NO ER;
LA not decided exclusion for unreasonable K&A;
same for all Ws, search and arrest
🗑
|
||||
| Wilson v. Ark. | KNOCK & ANNOUNCE;
in order to comply with the 4th Amendment’s reasonable inquiry requirement you must knock and announces…three exceptions:
-Threat of physical violence
-Destruction of evidence
-Hot pursuit
🗑
|
||||
| Richards v. Wisky | KNOCK & ANNOUNCE;
need reasonable suspicion for the three exceptions established in Wilson
🗑
|
||||
| US v. Banks | KNOCK & ANNOUNCE;
A reasonable time if measured by the totality of the circumstances -> imminent disposal is the measure of what is reasonable (not travel time to the door)
🗑
|
||||
| Hudson | KNOCK & ANNOUNCE;
violation of K&A does not invoke the EXCLUSIONARY RULE;
LA has not decided exclusion for unreasonable knock and announce
🗑
|
||||
| Vehicle Searches | incidental to arrest;
Carroll - PC to search V -> can search ANYTHING in V;
CA v. Acevedo - search any container if have PC;
Scalia says that effects in public, no privacy;
Haughton - w PC to search car, all containers can be searched even
🗑
|
||||
| Carroll | VEHICLE SEARCHES;
probable cause to search the vehicle means that you can search ANYTHING in the vehicle (even locked containers & ripping out upholstery)
🗑
|
||||
| CA v. Acevedo | VEHICLE SEARCHES;
you can search any container for which you have probable cause to believe that the container contains evidence (however, if container is removed from car you may need warrant, THIS IS STUPID)
🗑
|
||||
| Scalia on vehicle searches | Scalia says that any effects in public have no rights to privacy
🗑
|
||||
| Haughton | VEHICLE SEARCHES;
as long as you have PC to search the car, all containers can be searched regardless of ownership (i.e. passenger’s purse)
🗑
|
||||
| Administrative searches, 3 criteria | NY v. Burger (Chop Shop case)
3 Criteria:
-Substantial government interest
-Highly regulated industry where inspections are necessary to further regulatory scheme
-Statute that authorizes search must be const'ly adequate substitute for a search warra
🗑
|
||||
| Administrative searches | NY v. Burger, 3 criteria:
-Presence of law enforcement officers do not make administrative searches per se unreasonable
-Cannot be for general law enforcement interest
🗑
|
||||
| vehicle inventory search, federal | Inventory searches are fine but there must be statutory regulations & officer in GF (subjective motivation of the officer matters, must show objective evidence that they were in good faith)
🗑
|
||||
| sobriety checkpoints (federal) | MI v. Sitz - is sobriety checkpoint reasonable? Balancing test;
Primary purpose for stop must not be to search for “ordinary criminal activity” (Edmond);
Caballes - dog sniff @ car allowed if doesn't extend duration of seizure longer than necessary
🗑
|
||||
| sobriety checkpoints (LA) | State v. Jackson
-Advance Warning
-Minimal Delay
-Non-Discriminatory
--Systematic, non-random, criteria
**Preference for written regulations by administrative officers
🗑
|
||||
| border searches, 3 types | 1. fixed permanent border stop
2. fixed by impermanent checkpoint
3. roving patrol
🗑
|
||||
| border search: border stop (chart column one) | Suspicionless-
Routine Searches & Seizures (Flores);
RS-
Non-Routine Seizures (Montoya de Hernandez);
PC-
Extremely intrusive searches
Ex. Cavity search
(Montoya de Hernandez)
🗑
|
||||
| border search: fixed checkpoint (chart column two) | Suspicionless-
Administrative ->OK(Martinez-Fuertes);
Criminal ->NOT OK (Ortiz);
RS-
Routine Search and Seizures;
PC-
Non-Routine Search and Seizures
🗑
|
||||
| border search: roving patrol (chart column three) | Suspicionless-
NOT ALLOWED;
RS-
Person/Vehicle (Brignoni Ponce);
PC-
becomes a Terry Stop for anything beyond Normal
🗑
|
||||
| can use race as a criteria for border search? | for RS, can't be solely based on race;
for PC, can't be solely based on race; 9th Circuit says it's NEVER ALLOWED
🗑
|
||||
| Consent | Schneckloth
-Voluntariness of consent
-Totality of the circumstances
-No one factor is dispositive
🗑
|
||||
| 3rd Party Consent CA = common authority A = authority | joint access to property -> CA -> A to consent (Matlock);
PO in GF reasonably believes someone has A to give consent = valid (IL v. Rodriguez);
GA v. Randolph - CA — can’t consent over A of another if legally arrest one of parties w/ CA. (SPLIT)
🗑
|
||||
| Georgia v. Randolph CA = common authority A = authority | 3rd PARTY CONSENT
-Wife gives consent while her husband adamantly says no
-CA-can’t consent over the A of another if you legally arrest one of the parties w/ CA.
-split: 7th OK, 9th not OK (really liberal & goes against SC often)
🗑
|
||||
| Seizures (PC/RS) | Probable cause for objects;
Reasonable suspicion for persons;
Probable cause to arrest person;
Seizure for objects is a meaningful interference of possessory interest
🗑
|
||||
| Is it a seizure? cases | FL v. Royer - Reasonable person wouldn't feel free to terminate encounter;
Kaupp – kid seized in bedroom;
Hiibel- upon RS, ID must be provided;
Hodari— arrest w/physical laying on of hands or submission to assertion/A
-LA broader standard (Tuc
🗑
|
||||
| Florida v. Royer, seizure if ... | Reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter
🗑
|
||||
| Kaupp | kid seized in bedroom when cops “took” him all night long
🗑
|
||||
| Hiibel | upon Reasonable suspicion, identity must be provided
🗑
|
||||
| Hodari | arrest occurs when there is either a physical laying on of hands or a submission to the assertion of authority;
LA—has a broader standard - Tucker—seizures includes imminently about to be stopped (30 cop cars surrounding suspect)
🗑
|
||||
| Terry stops | 2 inquiries:
-RS that suspect involved in crime
-RS that suspect armed/dangerous to police or others
-Can only pat down to get PC to search person
-Const is flexible enough to accommodate certain police conduct on <PC;
RS needs articulable facts
🗑
|
||||
| Whren | (Terry Stop)
objective standard—officer’s subjective motivation does not matter
🗑
|
||||
| Atwater | (Terry Stop)
Can arrest for misdemeanor
🗑
|
||||
| 5A, federal vs. LA | FED: One should not be compelled to give TESTIMONY against one’s self;
LA: One should not be compelled to EVIDENCE against one’s self -> Broader, includes all evidence
🗑
|
||||
| 5A, general | Evidence must be compelled, testimonial, incriminating & in criminal context;
Purpose 5A = reliability of evidence
🗑
|
||||
| 5A, distinction between evidence | Distinction between mental & physical evidence:
-Blood isn't communicative (Schmerber)
-Real physical evidence not protected
-Mental calculations are protected
🗑
|
||||
| Miranda rights, general | written into LA const;
Right to remain Silent;
Right to an attorney;
Requires custodial interrogation to apply (LA includes detentions)
🗑
|
||||
| Is Miranda Constitutional right or procedural remedy (a prophylactic rule)? | -Dickerson says constitutional based;
-Elstad (Before Dickerson)-> prophylactic rule
🗑
|
||||
| Miranda, cases | NY v. Quarles, emergency exception to Miranda;
PA v. Muniz, asking question about name, height, and weight is fine (routine booking exception as long as they are not attempt to illicit criminal admission)
🗑
|
||||
| NY v. Quarles | emergency exception to Miranda
🗑
|
||||
| PA v. Muniz | asking question about name, height, and weight is fine (routine booking exception as long as they are not attempt to illicit criminal admission)
🗑
|
||||
| non-Mirandized confessions, fed v. LA | Federal -- Can use non-Mirandized confessions to refute testimony and to impeach witness at trial (in order to use the confession it must had to be voluntary, not just non-Mirandized);
LA -- no impeachment allowed
🗑
|
||||
| What is custody for Miranda? FA = formal arrest | Terry Stops not custody for Miranda (Berkemer)
-could argue detention for LA, but jurispr says otherwise;
reasonable person feel free to leave/terminate encounter?;
Mathiason & Berkemer - FA (Hodari) or restraint/freedom/movement to extent of FA
🗑
|
||||
| What is an interrogation for Miranda? | RI v. Innis
-Direct questioning or functional equivalent
-When PO should know statements are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response;
Brewer v. Williams
-Confession OK bc inevitable discovery exception
🗑
|
||||
| Rhode Island v. Innis | interrogation for Miranda?
-Direct questioning or its functional equivalent (deaf kids shooting each other)
-When police should know their statements are reasonably likely to illicit an incriminating response
🗑
|
||||
| Brewer v. Williams | interrogation for Miranda?
-Confession taken as okay because of inevitable discovery exception (Christian burial)
-4th Amendment inevitable discovery doctrine applies to 5th amendment confessions
🗑
|
||||
| Invocation of right of counsel for Miranda | Edwards - doesn't allow re-approach when invoke right to attorney;
Davis - what is proper invocation of attorney?
-Must be clear and unequivocal
-Officer can ask for clarification but not required to clarify Miranda
-LA adopted Davis rule US v. Payn
🗑
|
||||
| Edwards | Invocation of right of counsel for Miranda;
does not allow re-approach when invoke right to attorney
🗑
|
||||
| Davis | what is proper invocation of attorney for Miranda?
-Must be clear and unequivocal
-Officer can ask for clarification but are not required to clarify Miranda
-LA adopted Davis rule in U.S. v. Payne
🗑
|
||||
| Right to Remain Silent (R-RS) | Berghuis - have to show right was given and understood;
MI v. Moseley - diff btwn rights to counsel and to remain silent: officers may reapproach w/ R-RS if PO honor his R-RS = must be attenuated by time, different officer, emergency situation
🗑
|
||||
| Berguis | Right to Remain Silent:
have to show right was given and understood
🗑
|
||||
| Michigan v. Moseley | Difference between right to counsel and right to remain silent: officers may reapproached wit the right to remain silent…if officers scrupulously honor his right to remain silent = must be attenuated by time, different officer, emergency situation
🗑
|
||||
| Waiver of Miranda rights | Moran v. Burbine
-No right to know of counsel’s activity
-Doesn’t matter if police mislead counsel
-Mcgough doesn’t like, and LA says this does not fly (State v. Fernandez & State v. Matthew)
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
scottsmith81
Popular Law sets