Constitutional Law Final Flashcards
(99 cards)
1
Q
Stop / Detainer is
A
a limited intrusion in to a person’s freedom to acquire info for investigatory purposes
2
Q
Arrest is
A
restraint on a person’s liberty which includes summons, desk appearance ticket or traffic ticket
3
Q
Search is unconstitutional or unreasonable if
A
- it requires a warrant
- without probable cause
- made using excessive force
4
Q
Probable cause is
A
Sufficient evidence to show that a crime was committed and that defendant committed crime
5
Q
3 layers of encounters
A
1 Investigatory (lowest) 2 Detainer (articulable objective reason to stop) 3 Arrest (entitles officer stop from leaving, deprive of liberty and search)
6
Q
A frisk can be conducted if
A
there is a reasonable belief that person is armed. must be obvious with first touch
7
Q
Terry vs. OH
A
held that they did not need probable cause with articulable facts
8
Q
MN vs Dickerson
A
expanded Terry Stop to include contraband
9
Q
Roadblocks are constitutional if
A
1: must have defined purpose
2: carried out according to published guidelines
3: must be done with minimum inconvenience
10
Q
3 requirements for warrant
A
1: probable cause
2: oath or affirmation
3: particularization
11
Q
Entry on to private property
A
Must have a warrant which gives authorization to enter private home
12
Q
Exceptions to arrest without warrant
A
1 Exigent circumstances, ( flight of defendant, destruction of evidence, danger to defendant, police or 3rd party)
2 Consent
3 Hot pursuit
13
Q
Use of force acceptable when
A
1 Police must defend themselves
2 use of force equal to what is being used
3 to overcome resistance
14
Q
NY promptness standard
A
can be held 5 days (felony) or 6 if over weekend
15
Q
Traffic stop is valid if
A
1 on public highway
2 probable cause for traffic infraction
3 may issue a summons or warning
4 to search vehicle, must have probable cause
16
Q
TN vs Garner
A
shot unarmed burglar to prevent from fleeing.
1: did suspect pose immediate threat to pd or others?
2: was deadly force necessary for escape or could be done other way?
3: did pd give some warning of intention to use deadly force?
17
Q
Scott vs. Harris
A
using deadly force with his car
18
Q
Payton rule
A
warrant needed to search home
19
Q
A search is
A
Government intrusion into person’s privacy interest
20
Q
A seizure is
A
Government intrusion into person’s possession interest
21
Q
4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of
A
persons, papers and effects
22
Q
No 4th amendment challenge if
A
no reasonable expectation of privacy
23
Q
No privacy interest in
A
1 Place you do not live
2 In person
3 Property already exposed to public
24
Q
Wire tap cases
A
Olmstead vs. US (tap down street)
Katz vs US (bookie and phone booth)
25
4 subjects constitutionally protected
1 Person and areas of body not exposed to public
2 In Homes (where you live/offices/transient lodgings)
3 In your papers (mail/hard drive/audio tape)
4 Your effects (personal property/wallet/phone)
26
2 types of searches
1 Warrant required: probable cause, facts must show particulars
2 Without warrant: probable cause
27
4 categories subject to search warrant
1: fruits of a crime
2: instrumentality of crime
3: contraband
4: mere evidence
28
Case defining particularization
Steele vs US (whiskey)
29
2 Prong Test for warrant issued based upon CI informant
Aguilar Spinelli test: credibility of CI and reliability of info
30
Case regarding CI info and totality of circumstances
IL vs. Gates
31
NY state court vs federal court follows what for CI
state: Aguilar Spinelli
federal: IL vs. Gates
32
No warrant is needed exceptions:
1: Consent
2: Search Incident to arrest
3: Exigent Circumstances
4: Inventory Search
5: Plain view
6: Terry stop frisk
7: Automobile Search
8: Abandoned property
33
Consent
Must be knowing, voluntary, of free will and by someone who has the authority to give
34
Search incident to arrest
Pursuant to lawful arrest
| Limited to person and grabbable are
35
Exigent circumstances
1: need for immediate action (threat to safety of officer or general public)
2: threat of evidence being lost or destroyed
3: Hot pursuit
36
Hot pursuit case
Brigham City UT vs. Stewart
37
Plain view requirements
1: suspect must have demonstrated some kind of connection to property
2: must show reasonable expectation of privacy
3: how was evidence observed or perceived
38
When plain view requirement exist, items may be seized without a warrant if
1: officer must be lawfully present
2: must have unobstructed view of object
3: illegal nature of object must be readily apparent
if any missing must get warrant
39
Automobile stop
where vehicle stopped because of probable cause involved in a crime or because may contain contraband
40
Police may search entire care, bumper to bumper and any closed container if
Police believe car was involved in crime, would need probable cause to search occupants if they believe occupant was involved in crime
41
Abandoned property
must show that defendant intended to disassociate themselves from property. Abandonment must be initiated by defendant
42
Abandoned property case
People vs. Harris (police reason they discarded)
43
Exclusionary rule
Remedy for constitutional violations
- Prevents use of evidence unconstitutionally obtained
1: Restores defendant to position they would have been in without evidence
2: deters police from further violations
44
Exclusionary rule case
Weeks vs. US (gambling)
| Map vs. OH
45
Fruit of poison tree
evidence found from illegal search
46
Fruit of poison tree case
Wong Sun vs. US
47
Exceptions to exclusionary rule
1: evidence would been found eventually
2: Good faith rule
48
Good faith rule case
AZ vs. Evans
| US vs. leon
49
Use of illegal seized evidence
cannot be used as evidence of guilt but can be used for impeachment purposes (to show unbelievable)
50
Forest Service Surveillance Camera Case
US vs. McGyver
51
3rd Party Wire Tap Case
Hoffa vs. US
52
Challenges to legality of evidence obtained by surveillance
1. Does it occur in public
2. Is activity / info exposed to a third party
3. Does activity take place in a home
53
Thermal imaging enhanced surveillance case
Kyllo vs. US
54
Arial surveillance case
Dow Chem vs. US
55
Tracking device case (GPS)
US vs. Jones
56
Surveillance in home case (ether)
Carro vs. US
57
Video surveillance case (hotel room)
US vs Lee
58
Devices that only detect contraband
1. Chemical testing
| 2. Drug sniffing dog
59
Drug sniffing dog case
IL vs. Cabbaales
60
Wiretap Act
Prohibits interception of protected communication without special court order called wiretap order
61
Type of protected communications
1. Wire Communications
2. Oral communications
3, Electronic Communications
62
Interception is:
Acquisition of contents of a protected communication during the transmission of communication
63
Wire Communication is:
1. Transfer made in hole ro part by some facility for the communication by aid of wire, cable connection between point of inception and completion
2. transfer of voice a-b using wire
3. thru use of interstate communications facility
64
Oral Communications is:
1. uttered from 1 to another while exhibiting expectation of privacy
2. live face to face
3. expects not to be intercepted
4. reasonable not to be intercepted
65
Electronic Communication is
transmitted from point a-b, not voice and by means of wired device
66
Requirement of Interception
1. Protected communication
2. acquire contents of communication during transmission
3. by means of a device meant for that purpose (bug)
67
Requirements of Wiretap
1. Participating in a crime
2. must be necessity
3. Must have authorization from Attorney General
4. Probable Cause
5. Must designate duration of wiretap
6. Contains access to premises
7. Provision for minimization
8. Disclosure of tap prohibited
68
Exceptions to Wiretap rule
1. Exigent circumstances - confronted with emergency of death or injury, conspiring to threaten US or conspiracy with organized crime
2. must have objective belief that had there been time wiretap would have been approved.
3. must make formal request within 48 hours
69
Communication not regulated
1. Conversation naturally overheard
2. Lacking reasonable expectation of privacy
3. Interception where one party consents
70
Graveside wiretap case
kee vs. Rowlett
71
Recorded conversation in squad car case
US. vs. Turner
72
Stored communications act
allows for acquisition of conversations that have terminated
73
Time limits on disclosing stored communications
1. if less than 180 days, need search warrant
| 2. if older than 180 days, subpoena needed
74
Amendments that protect us when gathering statements
1. 4th Amendment prohibits illegal searches
2. 5th Amendment prohibits self incrimination allows due process
3. 6th Amendment affords right to counsel
4. 14th Amendment states' requirement to provide due process and 5th, 4th and 6th protections
75
Statements gathered and used at trial must have been made:
Voluntarily
76
Involuntary Statement Cases:
Beecher vs AL (gun to def's head)
| Brown vs. MS (whipping of def)
77
When physical force is used to coerce statement, statement is deemed to be
Per se involuntary
78
Types of undue influence or coercion
mental, sociological, emotional, familial, promises of immunity
79
Types of coercive atmosphere
room temp, how many police in room, handcuffed?, no contact with others, how long without food, water, sleep
80
The burden to prove that the statement made was voluntary is on:
the prosecutor
81
Federal requirement to show voluntariness
voluntary by preponderance of evidence
82
NY State requirement to show voluntariness
voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt
83
Wong Sun Fruit of the poison tree SCOTUS holding to determine if statement was voluntary (3)
1. what time passed between violation and obtaining of evidence?
2. were there any intervening circumstances that broke the chain between 1st violation and confession?
3. how bad was the violation?
84
Federal prompt arraignment ruling case
McNabb vs. US (confession in violation if fed prompt arraignment rule is subject to suppression)
Mallery vs. US (reaffirmed)
Omnibus Crime Central Act (now not auto suppressed)
85
Definition of confession
Statement where defendant admits to each element of a crime
86
Definition of admission
Statement by defendant that is contrary to his interest (i.e. admits to being at same place/time)
87
Voluntariness
Constitutional safeguards from 5th Amendment - cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Only after knowingly gives up their rights can they use statements against them
88
Rights / Statement Case
Miranda vs. US (rape case. never advised he had right to attorney, signed statement in English but only spoke Spanish)
89
Miranda Rights
1. You have the right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
3. You have the right to an attorney and to have one present while you are being questioned
4. If you cannot afford an attorney one will be provided without cost to you
90
A defendant can re-invoke their rights at any time and conversation must
Cease
91
Waiver of Miranda must be:
1. Voluntary
2. Knowingly and explicit
3. aware of ramifications
4. aware of their rights
92
Custody
Being under arrest, having freedom of movement foreclosed, when not able to leave.
Would a reasonable person believe that they were not able to leave?
93
Examples of custody
in isolation, display of weapons, number of police, handcuffed, in a cell, accusatory questioning
94
Interrogation
1. Any act by police which is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant
2. Questioning
3. Need to specifically address an individual (speaking around them)
95
Spontaneous / Gratuitous Statement Case
RI vs. Iness (I hope kids don't find that gun...def confessed to location)
Brewer vs. Williams (played on Christian beliefs to get confession without lawyer present)
96
Miranda Rights not needed if no:
Custodial Interrogation
97
Public Safety Exception Case
NY vs. Quarles (chased id'd rape suspect, where is gun?)
| Mesiah vs. US (used wire on def that was ROR to obtain info, still had right to counsel)
98
Inadmissible Confession
If not used to prove guilt, can be used (impeach credibility)
99
Inadmissible Confession Cases
Harris vs. NY (used to impeach credibility)
| Mincey vs. AZ (coerced statement can never be used for any purpose)
