Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

FINAL EXAM

Terms in this set (17)

Discuss the importance of pre-lineup instructions in identification procedures for lineups.
Witnesses tend feel pressured by the possibility they might look foolish if they don't know the answer. So they tell themselves the culprit has to be in the lineup, bc the police wouldn't have went through the trouble to arrange a lineup. Textbook states witnesses make a relative judgment. This means they select an individual in the lineup that looks most like the culpit without full certainty. There is also the"might or might not" instruction in which the administrator tell the witnesses prior to the lineup. Mistaken identifications from culprit-absent lineups are significantly higher when the witness is not given the pre-lineup instruction.
Identify the two steps in the totality of circumstances due process test of admissibility of eyewitness identification created by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The two steps in the tot of circumstances due process test of admissib is 1) the identification procedure was unnecessary suggestive. 2) The unnecessary suggestive procedure created a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. The two prong test states unnecessarily and impermissibly suggestive identifications are admissible unless defendants can prove that they create a "very substantial likelihood of misidentification.Thus, even though an out-of-court identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive, evidence of the out-of-court identification may still be admissible if the court is satisfied that under the totality of circumstances the identification is reliablethere is not a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification."
Identify and describe the five circumstances in the totality of circumstances due process test you identified.
Witnesses' opportunity to view defendants at the time of the crime, Witnesses' degree of attention at the time of the crime. Witnesses' accuracy of description of defendants prior to the identification. Witnesses' level of certainty when identifying defendants at the time of the identification procedure. The length of time between the crime and the identification.
Examine three reforms that legal experts suggest courts can implement to improve eyewitness identification reliability.
A per se rule excluding all evidence based on suggestive procedures, Looser standards for admitting expert testimony on human perception and memory and on the shortcomings of eyewitnesses identification, c.Requiring corroboration of eyewitness identifications in some cases, such as cross-racial identifications.
Identify and explain the rationales behind the three justifications for the exclusionary rule.
a.Constitutional rights—This is part of the constitutional rights against unreasonable serizure and coerced confessions and the rights to a lawyer and due process of law. Simply put, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn't mean anything without the exclusion rule
b.Judicial integrity—This preserves the honor and honesty of the courts. The judicial integrity justification forbids courts from participating in unconstitutional conduct.c.Deterrence—Prevents crime control agents from breaking the law.
Which justification does the U.S. Supreme Court use today?
The justification used today is: The reasonable, good faith exception, created by U.S. v. Leon (1984), If officers had reasonable, good faith belief that they were acting according to legal authority, such as by relying on a search warrant that is later found to have been legally defective, illegally seized evidence is admissible.
Explain five exceptions to the exclusionary rule.
a.Collateral use, is illegally obtained evidence is admissible in all no trial settings. Those include bail hearings, preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, ETC. b.Cross examination, the prosecution fcan use illegally obtained evidence to impeach defense witnesse CAttenuation of the taint of unconstitutional conduct, states that tainted evidence is admissible if the tot of circumstances in the case proves that the connection b/w police illegality and the evidence attenuated enough. d.Inevitable discovery is tainted evidence admissible if police law breaking produced the evidence but the evidence would have been discovered eventually,e.Last, is the good faith exception. Where State agents acting in good faith honestly believed they were complying with the Fourth Amendment.
Detail five possible negative effects of the exclusionary rule
Court delay,Diversion of resources from trials to suppression hearings,
Encouraging plea bargaining ,
Empowerment of corrupt police officers to immunize criminals by botching searches,
Fostering falser testimony by police.
Discuss two U.S. Supreme Court opinions that use the good-faith exception.
US v LeonHerring v US
The officer received a warrant from the judge and conducted searches on three residences based on Leon's daily activities. The officer acquired a vast majority of illegal drugs and other evidence. The affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued was found to be insufficient because it lacked probable clause. Leon filed motions to suppress the evidence seized and the district court granted the motions because the affidavit could not establish probable cause. The officer relied on the warrant and acted in good faith when he seized the evidence
Herring v US
The good faith exception has changed recently to include reliance due to the landmark case Herring v. United States (2009). In Herring, officers lacked probable cause to detain or search Herring until a police clerk in a neighboring county advised them that a current warrant called for his arrest. Police officers arrested and searched Herring's vehicle, which resulted in the detection of contraband and an illegally possessed weapon. However, the defendant was arrested on a mistake of a warrant that had been recalled some months before. Herring appealed stating the police obtained evidence illegally. According to the courts judgment, the exclusionary cannot be applied because the officer did not know what he was doing was illegal. The exclusionary rule should not apply when the police officer is "reasonably" unaware that they're violating the fourth amendment
Discuss three of the findings with regard to social costs and deterrence of the exclusionary rule.
The main objective is to deter police from violating individuals constitutional rights however, enforcing there is social costs. Three findings in regard to social costs and deterrence of the exclusionary rule is freeing guilty people, undermining the prosecution's case, and obstructing the search by keeping good evidence out of court. This led the Supreme Court to limit it to cases it believes are most likely to deter police misconduct.
Summarize the Bivens v. Six Unnamed FBI Agents case, and explain its significance.
In this case, six FBI agents entered Webster Biven's apartment without a search or arrest warrant. After they searched his apartment the agents arrested Bivens for violating federal drug laws and handcuffed him in the presence of his wife and children. He was taken to jail where he was interrogated, fingerprinted, photographed, subjected to search of his person, and booked. Bivens claimed these events caused him "great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering" and would continue.
The Court then created a law, constitutional tort, to provide a right to sue federal officers for violations of plaintiffs constitutional rights. In these "Bivens actions," plaintiffs have to prove two elements: Officers were acting "under color of authority" or the appearance of power.Officers' actions deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.
Identify the two elements of the qualified immunity defense, and explain why the test is so easy for officers to pass.
According to this defense, individual officers can't be held personally liable for official action if their action meets the test of "objective legal reasonableness." Reasonableness is measured by legal rules that were "clearly established" at the time the officers acted. It is easy for the officers to pass bc the officer has a broad discretion to do their job. This keeps them from being bombarded with "frivolous" lawsuits.
Identify and describe the differences between two kinds of state civil lawsuits against individual state officers.
State Tort lawsuits - Plaintiffs can sue individual officers for damages for acts such as assault, false arrest or false imprisonment, and trespassing or breaking and entering.
Federal U.S. Civil Rights Act Lawsuits - This allows plaintiffs to go into federal or state courts to sue state police officers and their agency heads; county sheriffs and their deputies; and municipal officers and their chiefs for violating plaintiffs' federal constitutional rights.
Identify two elements plaintiffs in § 1983 actions against state and local law enforcement officers have to prove. Identify and describe two limits placed by the U.S. Supreme Court in § 1983 actions against state and local officers.
Two elements plaintiffs must prove:
1) Officers acted "under color of state laws," which includes all acts done within the scope of their employment.2)Officers' actions caused a deprivation of plaintiffs' rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Two limits:
1Plaintiffs can only recover for deliberate actions, not for accidental or even negligent violations.2)State and local officers are protected by the same qualified immunity under 1983 that federal officers have under Bivens and the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Can you sue a judge or a prosecutor for damages resulting from actions performed in their official capacities? Explain
A judge cannot be sued because the judge enjoys "absolute immunity" from civil suits, meaning they can't be sued even if they acted maliciously and in bad faith. The only remedy with a judge is to impeach them or vote them out. b.A prosecutor - enjoy what is called, "functional immunity". This means their immunity depends on the functions they're performing at the time of misconduct. When they act as administrators or investigators, they're entitled to "qualified immunity". That is, they're immune unless their misconduct violated clearly established law that a reasonable prosecutor would have known
What were "sneak and peek" searches originally used for, and how has their legal status and definition changed since 9/11? Describe the three conditions under which the Patriot Act authorizes judges to issue sneak-and-peek warrants.
Sneak and Peak searches allow officers to enter private places without the owner or (occupant) consenting or even knowing about it. Originally, any evidence seized was admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. With the implementation of the USA Patriot Act it made it easier for government agents to monitor, search, and prosecute suspects. Three conditions under the Patriot Act that authorizes judges to issue sneak and peak warrants are roving wiretaps, business records, and lone wolf terrorists. Roving wiretaps are court orders that apply to particular people, rather than particular devices. The Patriot act included business records provision that allows national security investigators to obtain any books, records, and documents if the agent believes it is relevant tocase and investigation. Lone wolf terrorist are an islamist extremist with jihadist beliefs. The provision allows the government to spy on any non us person that engages in intern. Terrorism or activities in preparation.
Sets with similar terms