Study sets, textbooks, questions
Upgrade to remove ads
Criminal Law and Procedure Ch. 10-13
Terms in this set (38)
Mapp v. Ohio
a landmark case in the area of U.S. criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.
Herring v. U.S.
Simple police mistakes, like if warrant was already satisfied by another jurisdiction, do not require suppression of the evidence.
Jacobson v. U.S.
the subjective test of entrapment reversed the conviction of Jacobson due to his lack of predisposition at the time of governmental contact.
The government throws out illegally obtained evidence in the case against the defendant. Most frequently used remedy.
Defense of Entrapment
The Government dismisses cases against defendants who committed crimes they wouldn't have committed if law enforcement officers hadn't encouraged them to commit them.
Justifications for the Exclusionary Rule
1. Constitutional right
2. Judicial Integrity
Five Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
1. Collateral Use- allows illegally obtained evidence to be used in non-tribal proceedings. (bail hearings, preliminary hearings, Grand jury proceedings.
2. Cross-Examination- Exclusionary rule only applies to case-in-chief part of a trial. Therefore, in cross-examination, illegally obtained evidence may not be used.
3. Independent source- Fruit of the poisonous tree. as long as an officer does not seize evidence while breaking the law it is admissible.
4. Good Faith- Applies when an officer obtains evidence and truly believes that what they were doing was lawful, and then the evidence is considered viable.
5. Inevitable Discovery- Applies when evidence is found while an officer was being unlawful, however, it would have been seized anyway. In this case, the evidence is still viable.
Subjective Entrapment Test
1. They had no desire to commit the crime before the government's encouragement
2.The governments encouragement caused them to commit the crime.
Objective Entrapment Test
If the actions of the officer would cause the ordinary person to commit the crime the court should dismiss the case.
Anderson V. Creighton
the actions were seen as objectively reasonable because of the general rule of qualified immunity, the police action was held personally liable even reasonable.
Pinder v. Johnson
The police did not have constitutional duty to protect her and her children, even though she was promised that her boyfriend would not be able to get her and her family, and she couldn't file a restraining order till the next day.
Bivens v. Six Unnamed FBI Agents
In this case Bivens sued the six agents. He claimed that when arrested, the officers caused him great humiliation, embarrassment and mental suffering. This case is important because it created guidelines for a plaintiff to be able to sue officers on a personal level.
The right of plaintiffs to sue federal officers for violations of their constitutional rights. Must prove..
1. Officers were acting under appearance of power
2. Officers actions deprived the plaintiff of constitutional rights
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 "clearly established" at the time the officer acted.
creates lots of loop holes to make it easy for an officer to pass.
Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity
governments can't be sued with out their consent.
Sets with similar terms
Right to a fair trial
Criminal Procedure Exam #1 (chapters 1-3)
Courts and Criminal Procedures Final Exam
Sets found in the same folder
Chapter 12 Criminal Procedures
Exam 2: Searches for Evidence (Chapter 6)
Chapter 6: Searches for Evidence
Other sets by this creator
Spanish Oral Final
Juvenile Delinquency Final
Environmental Biology CH. 11
Other Quizlet sets
Chapter 4 Physics, Work and Energy
15.) True / False Constructive touching is that which is inferred or implied from prevailing circumstances.
What two things do you need to conduct a stop-and-frisk (also known as a Terry Stop or Terry Frisk)?
TRUE OR FALSE - An individual who has been the subject of a crime can prosecute the alleged criminal.
The Model Code recognizes a "choice of evils" defense. A person's conduct is justified if: