Please enter something

Criminal Procedure

question

Katz
answer

4th. There is a search when a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy is violated.
question

Oliver v. United States
answer

4th. Open field doctrine. REP of privacy in “open field” (private, undeveloped land outside house/curtilage).
question

United States v. Jones
answer

4th. Trespass + obtaining info = a search. 4th.
question

United States v. White
answer

4th. Third party doctrine. No REP (no search) in transmission of conversation by third party.
question

United States v. Miller
answer

4th. No REP in bank documents, therefore compelling banks to provide them is not a search.
question

California v. Greenwood
answer

4th. No REP in trash left for collection, even in opaque bag.
question

Florida v. Riley
answer

4th. No REP in what’s exposed to aerial search, even inside curtilage.
question

United States v. Jacobsen
answer

4th. No REP violation when police search a package that is already opened and searched by a third party; binary (yes/no) drug test is not a search.
question

California v. Hodari D
answer

Seizure = any force or submission to show of authority.
question

United States v. Mendenhall
answer

Seizure. Show of authority = whether reasonable person would believe he’s not free to leave.
question

United States v. Drayton
answer

4th. no search: 1. It was bus driver who trapped Drayton on the bus by taking his ticket and leaving, not the pigs. RP would have felt free to leave/end encounter in that situation. 2. People don’t need to be informed of right to refuse search
question

Brendlin v. California
answer

When a car is pulled over, the passenger is seized along with the driver.
question

Brinegar v. United States
answer

Probable cause = reasonable facts & circ’s that would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense is committed/will be/has been
question

Draper v. United States
answer

Probable cause from informant’s tip, if informant is reliable and known, and tip is corroborated as to innocent details.
question

Illinois v. Gates
answer

Basis of knowledge and veracity of informant are merely factors in a totality of the circumstances analysis for probable cause.
question

Florida v. Harris
answer

Subject to challenge by a defendant, when pigs provide evidence of drug dog’s training and certification, dog’s alert can provide PC (field data not required) because drug test is binary — non-invasive.
question

Maryland v. Pringle
answer

Warrants — particularity. Reasonable to infer that everyone in car is engaged in common enterprise, therefore when evidence of a crime present, PC to arrest all for that crime.
question

Payton v. New York
answer

Need for a warrant — 1. To arrest a person in his dwelling: need arrest warrant, reason to believe person is inside. 2. To arrest person on street, just need PC
question

Steagold v. United States
answer

Arrest warrant is insufficient to justify entry into a third party’s dwelling to arrest a person (but the person for whom the warrant is issued’s 4th amendment rights are not violated).
question

Wilson v. Arkansas
answer

Need for a warrant — Knock and announce part of 4th am analysis. Exceptions: exigent circ’s (e.g. escaped fellon, destruction of evidence, etc.)
question

Chimel v. California
answer

SIA. Search incident to arrest ok as long as confined to area within which arrestee could reach a weapon or evidence. It’s ok to search after arrestee is under control because to hold otherwise would incentivize more dangerous police conduct (searching before arrest).
question

United States v. Robinson
answer

SIA. extension of Chimel. Arrest on probable cause is an exception to warrant requirement. It includes search incident to arrest. Search incident to arrest is of the “whole person.” “categorical rule:” grababble area
question

Riley v. California
answer

SIA. Warrant needed for cellphone search because of amount of personal information on phone.
question

Winston v. Lee
answer

4th. Physical bodily intrusion – means extra balancing is necessary: degree of intrusion v. value of evidence in other words, some searches can be unreasonable even if based on probable cause and authorized by a magistrate
question

Welsh v. Wisconsin
answer

Preservation of evidence of civil violation not an exigent circumstance for warrantless home entry
question

Illinois v. McArthur
answer

Authority to search without warrant includes authority to restrain temporarily while warrant obtained. (authority of greater intrusion includes authority of lesser intrusion
question

Kentucky v. King
answer

Police can rely on exigent circumstance they create as long as they have acted reasonably up to that point (not violated or threatened to violate suspect’s rights) (exigent circumstances are almost always “furtive movements”) (court was unwilling to infer threat from tone, etc., so it would probably have to be reasonable (innocent) person in suspect’s situation standard)
question

Minnesota v. Carter
answer

4th am. Short term visitor with no relationship to resident on premises for commercial = no REP
question

Kyllo v. United States
answer

Sensing technology (e.g. thermal) not in public use that obtains info that could not otherwise be obtained w/o physical intrusion is a search
question

Florida v. Jardines
answer

Drug dog case. License to approach door is limited to what license you would normally give to someone (approach and knock, etc.)
question

Chambers v. Maroney
answer

Police can search vehicle without warrant with probable cause, either at the scene or later (at police station)
question

United States v. Chadwick
answer

Luggage search requires a warrant or exigent circumstances.
question

California v. Acevedo
answer

It is constitutional to search a vehicle, including closed containers, without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe there is contraband/evidence inside (the car)
question

Wyoming v. Houghton
answer

A container inside a car can be searched; it doesn’t matter whether it’s owned by the driver or another passenger.
question

South Dakota v. Opperman
answer

Inventory search is different from an investigatory search. The test is balancing, not warrant and PC.
question

Arizona v. Gant
answer

SIA of a vehicle can only be ok if either: arrestee can reach into vehicle at the time, or there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of arrest is inside.
question

Knowles v. Iowa
answer

stopped for speeding, issued citation, no arrest search of car reveals evidence of crime is search incident to citation lawful? no like Gant, justifications for search are not present to same extent not possible to find further evidence of speeding citation less dangerous than arrest
question

Terry v. Ohio
answer

Reasonable suspicion of crime justifies temporary stop to investigate further (ask questions) RS that person is armed justifies frisk (pat down outer clothing) 2 part test 1. Justified at inception Reasonably related in scope to circ’s that justify interference in the first place
question

Adams v. Williams
answer

RS can be officer’s own judgment or reliable informant
question

Florida v. J.L.
answer

Anon. tip of gun + accurate description of non-suspicious things is not RS
question

Illinois v. Wardlow
answer

1. High crime area + headlong flight sufficient for RS 2. RS for drug dealing provides RS to pat down for weapon
question

United States v. Sharp
answer

Scope of Terry stop: time for stop is reasonable if cops diligent investigation likely ro resolve suspicion extra time of stop that’s the suspects fault is not counted for reasonableness of length of stop
question

Minnesota v. Dickerson
answer

Scope of Terry Stop: bound by justificatoin tactile search beyond that necessary to determine absence of weapons is beyond the scope of the frisk leaving crack house and doing 180 when seeing polic is sufficient for RS
question

Brown v. Texas
answer

Two men walking in opposite directions in HCA not enough for reasonable suspicion Court did not decide constitutionality of ID law
question

Hiibel v. Nevada
answer

Terry permits a state to require ID during a Terry stop.
question

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
answer

Consent to search voluntary in the absence of coercion/duress (i.e. will is overborne) – inquiry is into totality of circ’s – knowledge of possibility of refusal is 1 factor, but not dispositive
question

Stoner v. California
answer

hotel manager cannot consent to search of residence – although the hotel manager has an implied right to enter, that would go beyond it (this is in contrast to third party doctrine (white). probably do to heightened protection afforded domiciles)
question

United States v. Matlock
answer

One who has common authority/sufficient relationship to property can give consent to search (e.g. live-in girlfriend) (however, if 2 separate, divided room, the other person can give consent to search the common areas, but not your own private room)
question

Illinois v. Rodriguez
answer

If pigs can rely on reasonable belief that 3rd party has authority to consent, then search is Constitutional.
question

Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco
answer

Special needs: Admin searches require PC & warrant PC = admin/legislative standards apply PC not based on individualized suspicion this is a special needs search case – not done for normal law enforcement policies 2 scenes when we can have a standard less than PC less intrusive (terry) different need (camara) it’s reasonable if interests of gov’t outweigh private interests of individual
question

Ferguson v. City of Charleston
answer

(hospital collecting urine samples from pregnant women) not a special needs search when law enforcement involved initially to gain/preserve evidence of crime
question

Florence v. Burlington County
answer

– strip search before entering prison reasonable without RS – deference to prison officials when policy applies to every inmate – preventing drugs/weapons from entering prison is not ordinary law enforcement, it’s a different special need
question

Board of Education v. Earls
answer

special needs -Students have lesser degree of privacy – students participating in extracurricular activities have even lesser expectation of privacy – urine drug test reasonable without RS or evidence of a drug problem in the school – remember special needs (other than ordinary needs of law enforcement) = balancing privacy intrusion v. special needs of gov’t
question

School District v. Redding
answer

scope of search must be reasonably related to the justification for the search factors for reasonableness of scope: age gender (non-exclusive) a strip search (like in this case) is more intrusive – requires additional justification
question

National Treasury Employee’s Union v. Von Raab
answer

– special needs: customs employees had to have urine tested to be be promoted to certain positions – testing was justified, even though no empirical data of a the need for one
question

City of Ontario v. Quon
answer

– if justified at inception/ reasonably related in scope, special needs can justify reading transcript of texts – data point for r’s’bleness of special needs searches
question

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
answer

sobriety checkpoints = r’s’ble special needs search because it was for highway safety and “not” normal law enforcement
question

Indianapolis v. Edmond
answer

Drug checkpoint is not a special needs stop, it’s ordinary law enforcement, therefore there has to be a particularized suspicion to stop someone NB: regular stop/arrest: PC + warrant or warrant exception Terry stop (less invasive): reasonable suspicion, particular to individual stopped
question

Brown v. Mississippi
answer

– 14th am due process clause prevents states from engaging in practices that offend principles of justice – prosecution cant use a statement in court unless the statement is made voluntarily – for this type of violation timing doesn’t matter (before or after indictment) – what matters is totality of circ’s, whether or not will of person being questioned is overborne
question

Spano v. New York
answer

totality of circ’s : – at station – post-indictment – without counsel, even though he asked for it therefore, involuntary reason why indictment matters here when it doesn’t in brown is the fact of the indictment is one of the factors in the totality of the circ’s
question

Massiah v. United States
answer

– right to counsel attaches post-indictment – right to counsel includes right to have counsel present in all critical stages – interogation exists when cops use a third party to deliberatley elicit information
question

Escobedo v. Illinois
answer

– 6th am. attaches when the investigation begins to focus on one specific person – voluntariness vel non of giving away information doesn’t matter when the issue is decided on 6th am grounds (subsumed by Miranda, not overturned)
question

Miranda v. Arizona
answer

in custodial interrogation, client must be warned (informed) of rights prior to interrogation
question

Fellers v. United States
answer

6th am. violation when officers intentionally elicit inculpatory statement after indictment in other words: miranda does not subsume 6th am rights.
question

Brewer v. Williams
answer

“christian burial speech” When police do or say something that intentionally illicits an inculpatory statement, it is functionally an interrogation “christian burial speech”
question

Kuhlmann v. Wilson
answer

– Jailhouse informant = government actor because he’s hired by gov’t to listen – when gov’t actor only listens, doesn’t act, it’s not interrogation, gov’t actor didn’t do enough to count as eliciting
question

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas
answer

any formal judicial proceeding in relation to the prosecution is sufficient to attach the right to counsel (any appearance before magistrate) doesn’t necessarily mean that there is right to counsel at initial appearance
question

Colorado v. Connelly
answer

– voluntariness of confession does not apply to mental health issues – “voices made me do it” does not count as involuntary – question is whether cops did anything to overbear will
question

Arizona v. Fulminante
answer

– defendant’s will overborne, confession inadmissible when jailhouse informant offers to protect D from other inmates only if D confesses
question

Schmerber v. California
answer

Content of blood not testimonial, therefore doesn’t implicate 5th amendment right not to be compelled to testify against yourself testimony = contents of mind (beliefs/knowledge)
question

Kastigar v. United States
answer

Use and derivatieve use immunity is coextensive with 5th amendment privilege; therefore the court can compel testimony in exchange for immunity
question

Baltimore Dept. of Social Services v. Bouknight
answer

exception to 5th am privilege where voluntarily subject to admin. scheme requiring production
question

Berkemer v. McCarty
answer

– miranda governs admissibility of statements during custodial interrogation of suspect accused of misdemeanor traffic offense – traffic stop is not custody, more akin to Terry stop – Miranda is necessary when suspect’s degree of movement is curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest
question

JDB v. North Carolina
answer

5th am custody. juveniles age is factor in whether or not there is custody if it’s known or should be known to officer 5th am. interrogation i.e. custody is reasonable person test; reasonable person of x age
question

Rhode Island v. Innis
answer

interrogation for 5th am. = conduct police should have known is reasonably likely to illicit a response
question

New York v. Quarles
answer

public safety exception to miranda (where is the gun?) judicially created rule. no exception to 5th am. answer not coerced. Miranda = judicially created rule; only functions where benefit outweighs cost
question

Illinois v. Perkins
answer

miranda warning not required when non-detained suspect not aware that he’s talking to gov’t agent (informer) (not as much coercive pressure when suspect doesn’t know it’s that cops)
question

Michigan v. Mosley
answer

– When a suspect invokes rights and refuses to talk, then incriminates self on subsequent occasion, first invocation of rights does not invalidate second confession – miranda guarantees cessation of questioning – 2 hours is sufficient
question

Edwards v. Arizona
answer

once right to counsel is invoked, can’t re-interrogate unless: – the accused initiates further exchange, or – attorney provided
question

Maryland v. Shatzer
answer

once right to counsel is invoked, suspect can be re-interrogated and mirandized after 14-day break in custody Edwards timeline “return to normal life” in this case, incarceration
question

Berghuis v. Thompkins
answer

– invocation of right to silence must be unambiguous (silence is ambiguous) – waiver can be any conduct inconsistent with invoking right (e.g. asking questions) – if there is neither invocation nor waiver, police are allowed to question (e.g. suspect refuses to answer)
question

Moran v. Burbine
answer

events that occur outside presence of suspect and totally unknown to him have no bearing on whether waiver of right was knowing and voluntary
question

Missouri v. Seibert
answer

when midstream warning (interrogation, confession, Miranda, other confession) later confession inadmissible
question

Colorado v. Spring
answer

suspect’s ignorance of intent of police to ask about other crimes does not invalidate knowing/intelligent waiver
question

Dickerson v. United States
answer

challenge to law overturning Miranda – court says statutory scheme congress devised is not sufficient to satisfy miranda – Court can make a law that’s more protective than Miranda, but not one that’s less
question

Mapp v. Ohio
answer

evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment must be excluded in state courts Applies Weeks to the state courts
question

Hudson v. Michigan
answer

– violating knock and announce rule does not trigger exclusionary rule – only apply knock and announce rule when benefits outweigh negative consequences
question

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
answer

any evidence obtained as a result of 4th amendment violation is excluded (fruit of the poisonous tree) (excludes things that would have been discovered anyway)
question

Wong Sun v. United States
answer

an out-of-court declaration made after an arrest may not be used at the trial against one of the declarant’s partners in a crime unless the statement was made in furtherance of the criminal undertaking
question

United States v. Patane
answer

Exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of Miranda. Exclusionary rule only applies when the benefits outweigh the costs.
question

Rakas v. Illinois
answer

– One cannot assert another person’s constitutional rights – No REP for passengers in vehicle
question

Nix v. Williams
answer

Doctrine of inevitable discovery where evidence would inevitably have been discovered, fruit of poisonous tree doctrine does not apply burden of proving inevitability belongs to prosecution, and is preponderance of the evidence
question

Murray v. United States
answer

Independent source doctrine Exclusionary rule does not apply if police could have gotten evidence from independent source Exclusionary rule is supposed to put the police in the same position they would have been in had they not done the unconstitutional thing: not better, not worse
question

United States v. Leon
answer

exclusionary rule does not apply when police rely on a facially valid warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate
question

Herring v. United States
answer

exclusionary rule does not apply when 4th amendment violation was due to “one-off” (not-systemic) clerical error
question

Davis v. United States
answer

Exclusionary rule does not apply when police officers acted in good faith on circuit court precedent
question

Harris v. New York
answer

evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is admissible for impeachment purposes
question

Kansas v. Ventris
answer

Statements obtained in violation of 6th am. can be used to impeach