Study sets, textbooks, questions
Upgrade to remove ads
Criminal Procedure Quiz
Terms in this set (66)
Fundamental Fairness Doctrine (2)
1. Notice to defendants of the charges against them
2. A hearing on the facts before convicting and punishing defendants
Rochin v. California
Police force man to throw up pills. Conduct shocked the conscience and violated Due Process Clause.
Equal Protection Claim
1. Must prove prosecution had a discriminatory effect - race or some illegal characteristic accounts for prosecution.
2. Must prove discriminatory purpose - the prosecutor selected defendant because of a group characteristic.
US v. Armstrong
They did not overcome the presumption of regularity, due to the discovery catch-22.
Facts relevant to criminal procedure cases (2)
1. Acts by government officials
2. Objective basis for those actions (quantum of proof)
US v. Jacobsen
If a private party conducts a search without help or encouragement from police, they may show police what they found. However, police must be virtually certain that the inspection will not reveal more than the private party showed.
US v. Lichtenberger
Searching a computer handed over by a private party for child porn exceeded the scope of the private search, because there is not virtual certainty that the police would not have discovered more than the private search.
Until 1967, a search occurred only when police physically invaded a constitutionally protected area, which was only a person and their private property.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
First suggested in Olmstead dissent; if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then it is a search. Must fulfill a test
1. Subjective- The person exhibited an actual expectation of privacy
2. Objective - Society is prepared to recognize that expectation of privacy as reasonable
Expectation that certain facts will not be discovered by authorities is not the same thing - wrondoers' reasonable expectation of privacy
Katz v. US
Eavesdropping on a phone booth was a search because it violated his reasonable expectation of privacy
Illinois v. Caballes
Drug sniffing dogs do not constitute a search, since they only sniff out drugs, which someone has no expectation of privacy against
US v. White
An undercover officer in your home may transmit your conversation to other agents without violating Fourth Amendment, because the Third Party Doctrine applies. It is no different than him writing the conversation down.
US v. Miller
You have no expectation of privacy in bank records, because they are not your private papers.
Smith v. Maryland
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone numbers dialed from your phone, because you voluntarily send this info to the phone company.
California v. Greenwood
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your trash, because society is not ready to accept that. Putting trash at the curb exposes it.
Kyllo v. US
Using a thermal imager to trap heat signatures from your home is a search, because it is not in public use and it violates reasonable expectation to privacy.
US v. Jones
Attaching a GPS tracker to a car is a search, because the police physically occupied property (trespass doctrine still applies), and it violated reasonable expectation of privacy.
US v. Warshak
You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your emails, and police looking at them is a search. Appellate
State v. Patino
You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your SENT text messages. Appellate
US v. Ganias
Police cannot execute a warrant to seize computer data indefinitely by copying it to use in future investigations. Appellate
Two parts of the Fourth Amendment (Clause)
1. Reasonableness Clause
2. Warrant Clause (Probable Clause, affidavit, etc.)
Until the 1960s, SCOTUS held that the warrant clause guaranteed that only searches and seizures based on warrants and probable cause were reasonable
Reasonableness test for searches and seizures not covered under a warrant (2)
1. Balancing element- The need to search/seize outweighs the invasion of rights against the individual
2. Objective Basis - There are enough facts and circumstances to back up the search/seizure
Terry v. Ohio
An officer may stop and frisk if a person is suspected of a violent crime and is armed, and an officer, in the light of his training reasonably suspects that crime may be afoot, based on articulable facts and circumstances. A stop does not automatically lead to a frisk. Violent crime automatic frisk exception.
1. The officer must make a lawful stop before frisking
2. The officer must reasonably suspect that the person is armed and dangerous.
3. The search is limited to a once-over-lightly pat down to detect weapons only, not contraband or evidence.
Adams v. William
Reasonable, individualized suspicion is not limited to an officer's direct observation, and frisks do not have to apply only to violent crimes.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Nevada
Nevada's requirement to identify yourself to police is reasonable and satisfies the balancing element of privacy v. government interest.
Navarette v. California
Although an anonymous tip alone rarely satisfies reasonable suspicion, one that is reliable and backed up by the officer's account and other circumstances is reasonable.
Illinois v. Wardlow
Unprovoked flight from a police officer in an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking adds up to reasonable suspicion to be stopped. Being in the area alone is not enough, but coupling it with the flight is.
Sibron v. New York
A stop does not justify a frisk for contraband and evidence
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Rolling a lump between your fingers suspecting its cocaine is unreasonable, since the purpose is to search for weapons. If an officer finds drugs, he may seize it, as long as the frisk was not the pretext for looking for drugs.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
When an officer lawfully stops a vehicle, without any reason to suspect the driver is armed, he can always demand that the driver get out of the car.
Maryland v. Wilson
It is reasonable for an officer to order passengers out of a stopped vehicle, because the intrusion is minimal due to the passenger already being stopped with the driver.
Arizona v. Johnson
It is lawful to frisk a passenger in a stopped vehicle if they are suspected to be armed and dangerous, even if they are not suspected of committing a crime.
Balancing test to determine whether roadblocks and checkpoints are reasonable (3)
1. The gravity of the public interest served by the seizure
2. The effectiveness of the seizure in advancing public interest.
3. The degree of interference with the stopped person's liberty
Michigan v. Sitz
DWI checkpoints, although not based on particularized suspicion, are reasonable. The government interest in stopping drunk driving outweighs the invasion of liberty.
Indianapolis v. Edmond
Drug interdiction checkpoints are unreasonable, because they constitute general crime fighting, and do not serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement. It is ordinary criminal wrongdoing.
Illinois v. Lidster
Information-seeking checkpoints are reasonable because they demonstrate a grave public concern, and this interest outweighs the invasion of liberty. The police were looking for information, not evidence of a crime.
US v. Montoya de Hernandez
An extended detention at the border to determine if someone is a balloon swallower is reasonable
Reasonableness requirement of a lawful arrest (2)
Objective Basis - The arrest was supported by probable cause
Manner of Arrest - The way the arrest made was reasonable
Probable Cause to Arrest
An officer, in the light of his or her training and experience, knows enough facts and circumstances to reasonably believe that:
1. A crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, and
2. The person arrested has committed, is committing, or is about to commit the crime.
Heresay can be used for probable cause, but not as evidence of guilt.
Anonymous tips are not enough to establish probable cause, unlike reasonable suspicion
Draper v. US
Heresay evidence provided by an informant was enough to provide probable cause to arrest as the man stepped off the train.
Arrest Warrant Requirement
To arrest someone in their home, an arrest warrant is required. It is advised to ensure the legality of all arrests.
1. Neutral magistrate - to decide if there is probable cause
2. Affidavit - Sworn statement to the facts and circumstances amounting to probable cause
3. The name of the person to be arrested (few exceptions)
Exigent Circumstances to arrest in home without warrant (3)
1. Hot pursuit
2. Imminent destruction of evidence
3. Imminent escape of suspect
Objective Standard of Reasonable Force
Officers may use the amount of force necessary to apprehend and bring suspects under control. It does not factor in an officer's intent or motives.
Deadly force can only be used if its necessary to apprehend dangerous suspects and it does not put innocent people in danger.
Graham v. Connor
Excessive force claims should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard, rather than a substantive due process right against excessive force approach. Cases should be viewed through the lens of an officer in the heat of the moment, rather than after the fact.
Kuha v. Minnetonka
A police department's dog bite-and-hold policy is objectively reasonable. Appellate
Armstrong v Village of Pinehurst
Using a taser on a suspect that is not posing a threat is unreasonable.
Atwood v. City of Lago Vista
It is reasonable for the police to make a custodial arrest supported by probable cause even on a citation-only offense, such as a seat belt violation. If there is reason to arrest, there is no need to look further into it.
Search Warrant Requirement (3)
1. Particularity - Address of place to be searched, and items to be seized. Can include classes of items such as business records. Catch-all categories such as "items related to prostitution" are allowed
2. Probable Cause Affidavit - Must include evidence to support the claim that the items named in the warrant will be found at that address. Must be signed by magistrate
3. Knock and Announce
Wilson v. Arkansas
The knock and announce rule is an element of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. However, not every entry into a home must be announced. The entry in Wilson might have been legal, but it was remanded to be considered under the new rule
Exceptions to Knock and Announce rule (3)
1. To prevent violence
2. To prevent destruction of evidence
3. To prevent escape of suspects
There may be more exceptions to come
There is no blanket exception, such as a "drug house" no knock rule
Officers must wait a reasonable amount of time before breaking down the door
Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
1. Searches incident to arrest
2. Consent searches
3. Vehicle searches
4. Container searches
5. Emergency (Exigent Circumstance) searches
Chimel v. California
After arrest, an officer may only search the area in the immediate control of the suspect incident to arrest. Beyond that, police must obtain a warrant if in a home.
New York v. Belton
The grabbable-area rule of Chimel applies even when the arrested person was outside of the car and under the control of the police. Searching the passenger compartment of the car is permissible.
This has opened a window for police to make pretext arrests so that they can search a suspect's vehicle.
Arizona v. Gant limited this to if evidence of a crime could reasonably be found in the vehicle, such as drugs.
Does not apply to traffic citations.
Whren v. US
Pretext stops are permissible under the Fourth Amendment. If the police have an objective basis for stopping a vehicle, the officer's intentions do not matter. If police suspect a driver of having drugs, they may pull him over if he speeds or is not wearing a seat belt, with the purpose of investigating a possible drug crime.
Consent to Search Requirement
The government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that consent to search is voluntary.
This requires officers to initially interrogate the totality of the circumstances in each case to determine if the suspect consented voluntarily.
Police do not have to tell you that you may refuse consent, except in Arkansas
The scope of the search is as far as an officer reasonably believes it to be.
Interrogation of Third Party Consent (2)
1. Actual authority consent
2. Apparent authority consent -when an officer reasonably believes that that someone has the authority to consent to a search.
Basis for Third Party Consent
1. That the consenting party could permit the search "in his own right"
2. That the defendant had "assumed the risk" that a co-occupant might permit a search.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
Police may enter a home to search if they reasonably believe that the consent given is by someone with authority over the property, even if that person does not have actual authority over the property. This case upholds apparent authority third-party consent.
Emergency Searches that don't Require Warrant
1. Officer's safety - Frisks
2. Destruction of evidence before warrant is obtained
3. Felon might escape before warrant is obtained
4. Community is in immediate danger
Hot Pursuit Exception for Searches
If an officer has probable cause to arrest, he may follow a suspect into a home and search the home for the suspect and weapons. However, the search can only be to the extent necessary from preventing the suspect from escaping, not every nook and cranny.
Special Needs Searches elements
1. Searches must balance the government's special need to inspect against the invasion of privacy of individuals' privacy.
2. Objective basis - Routine procedures; lower than even reasonable suspicion, because these aren't searches for gathering evidence.
No probable cause or individualized suspicion is needed to search. However, reasonable suspicion is needed for strip searches.
Griffin v. Wisconsin
Warrant officers can search a probationer's home with only reasonable suspicion, as they don't enjoy the same liberty that other citizens are entitled to.
US v. Knights
Expands Griffin's rule to all law enforcement officers to search.
Samson v. California
Parolees have a lower expectation of privacy than even probationers.
All law enforcement officers can search parolee's person and homes without even reasonable suspicion.
SCOTUS has not interrogated.
At a state school, school officials have a little more leeway than police in conducting nonconsensual searches.
There is an undefined balancing test between a student's right to privacy and the school's interest in maintaining a safe learning environment.
Sets with similar terms
Auditing Quiz 2 (Parts 1,3,4,5)
Judicial Branch Quiz 3 Study Set
ACCT 2700 Chapter 10 quiz
Other sets by this creator
Civ Pro Timing
Civ Pro Midterm
Criminal Procedure Final
Other Quizlet sets
Progress of Redemption Exam 2 Study Guide
microbio test 3
Pain Management Week 1