Criminal Procedure – Flashcards

Unlock all answers in this set

Unlock answers
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
Get an explanation on any task
Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
New