Crim Pro Flashcards
(134 cards)
1
Q
4th amendment
A
right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,
& no warrants shall issue but upon PC …and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons to be seized
2
Q
electronic tracking (search)
A
info obtained via sense-enhancing tech re: interior of home that couldn’t have been obtained w/o physical intrusion = search
3
Q
Variables pertinent to determining curtilage:
A
- Area’s proximity to home
- Existence of an enclosure around the area
- Nature of the use to which the area is put
- Precautions taken to exclude others from the area
4
Q
curtilage v open fields inquiry
A
whether the gov’s intrusion infringes upon the personal & societal values protected by the 4th
5
Q
Dog sniff
A
- Not search bc it doesn’t reveal any info other than whether there’s illegal drugs
- However, you can’t just bring a trained drug-sniffing dog to someone’s front door. No customary invitation to bring a trained police dog to explore area around a home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence
6
Q
what is PC?
A
- “fair probability” or “substantial chance”
- must be based on objective facts
- essential precondition for valid warrant to search or seize
7
Q
PC for arrest
A
Facts & circumstances w/in PO’s knowledge ( & of which he has reasonably trustworthy info) which are sufficient in themselves to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that:
- a particular person
- has or is committing a particular offense
8
Q
PC for searches
A
Facts & circumstances warranting belief that:
- Fruits/instrumentalities/evidence of crime
- Presently
- In specific location
9
Q
existence of PC determined by
A
judge, not PO
10
Q
how to evaluate PC when PC showing relied on info provided by informant
A
totality of circumstances test - task of magistrate is to make a PRACTICAL, COMMON SENSE DECISION whether: given all circumstances set forth in affadavit (incl veracity & basis of knowledge of person supplying info) there’s a FAIR PROBABILITY that contraband or evidence will be found in a particular place
11
Q
stricter aguilar-spinelli test for evaluating PC based on hearsay
A
1. Basis of Knowledge: how did informant acquire info? • express stmt of 1st hand knowledge • self-verifying detail • accurate prediction of future events 2. Veracity: should informant be believed? • track record of accurate info • declaration against interest • independent corroboration
12
Q
warrant not required for arrest if crime is:
A
a. Felony;
b. Misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence; or
c. ∆ arrested in public place
13
Q
4th requires a judicial determination of PC as a prerequisite to extend restraint on liberty following a warrantless arrest:
A
a. jdx tht provides w/in 48 hrs, generally complies w/ 4th A promptness requirement
b. when arrestee doesn’t receive w/in 48hrs, burden shifts to gov to demonstrate emergency or extraordinary circumstance
14
Q
Anticipatory Search Warrants
A
• based on affidavit showing PC tht
1. at some future time
2. certain evidence of crime
3. will be located at a specified place.
most subject execution to a triggering condition (but doesnt have to be in warrant)
• doesnt violate 4th bc PC requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when search is conducted
15
Q
In order to comply with PC requirement, 2 pre-req’s of probability required:
(anticipatory search warrants)
A
- if triggering condition occurs, there’s a fair probability that contraband or evidence of crime will be found in a particular place
- PC to believe triggering condition will occur
16
Q
Test for whether a warrant is sufficiently particular
A
- As to what is to be taken, nothing is to be left to the discretion of PO executing the warrant
- Degree of required particularity depends on what is feasible under the circumstances, including the nature of things to be seized
17
Q
4th amendment specifies only two matters that must be particularly described in warrant:
A
- places to be searched
2. persons or things to be seized
18
Q
Mistake in description of place to be searched
A
- doesn’t invalidate, provided mistake is reasonable (info available to police at time of application & issuance)
- warrant invalid if police knew, or should have known, warrant was mistaken
19
Q
Knocking before entry
A
• reasonable execution of warrant generally requires police knock, announce, & be denied before forcing entry
• exception: police have RS that knocking & announcing would be:
1. dangerous
2. futile; or
3. would inhibit effective investigation (e.g. destruction of evidence)
20
Q
exception to warrant requirement: analysis
A
- What is the SHOWING necessary to invoke exception?
(What facts or circumstances need to be established in order for PO to use) - What is the SCOPE of authority conferred by the exception?
- What is the underlying RATIONALE?
21
Q
SILA - showing/requirements
A
- PC to arrest
- warrant if required (payton)
- custody
22
Q
SILA - scope
A
- grasping distance of arrestee
- articles inside unlocked passenger compartment generally w/in reach
- in case of lawful custodial arrest: full search of person is reasonable
23
Q
SILA - rationale
A
- Prevent arrestee from obtaining weapon/harming PO
2. Prevent destruction/concealment of evidence
24
Q
SILA - passenger compartment scope
A
Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupants arrest only if:
- arrestee is w/in reaching distance of passenger compartment at the time of the search; or
- it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest
25
Payton Doctrine - Showing
1. arrest warrant
| 2. PC to believe ∆ is inside home
26
Payton Doctrine - Scope
1. Police may enter ∆’s house & conduct search necessary to find ∆
2. Search warrant is required to lawfully enter house of 3rd party to make arrest
27
Payton - Rationale
* protecting interest of 3rd party
* judicial determination of PC to arrest carries w/ it a derivative authority to deprive the person named in warrant of his privacy w/in his home - but this does not give PO authority to deprive a 3rd party of their privacy
28
Exigent Circumstances - Showing
1. PC to search
2. Exigency requiring immediate search
• ex: hot pursuit, loss of evidence, public safety, assist seriously injured persons or threatened w/ such injury.
• subejctive intentions don't matter as long as circumstances justify PO's actions
29
Exigent Circumstances - Scope
* Defined by exigency that justifies warrantless search
| * Search must end, & police must obtain warrant, once circumstances justifying warrantless search no longer exist
30
Exigent Circumstances - Rationale
B/c of the exigency, obtaining warrant is impracticable
31
Vehicle & Container (Auto) - Showing
1. PC to search
2. Readily mobile auto
3. Not used primarily as residence
32
Vehicle & Container (Auto) - Scope
1. defined by facts establishing PC
2. may search places where object of search may be located
3. At scene or station:
• police may open containers in car if PC to believe object of search inside (ak47 ex)
• no "container exception"; police must seize & apply for warrant
33
Vehicle & Container (Auto) - Rationale
1. ready mobility (practical necessity; rigorous enforcement of warrant requirement is impossible)
2. lesser expectation of privacy
34
how long can police hold a car before searching?
* no specific time limit; 3 days ok
| * possibility that delay adversely affected privacy or possessory interest could result in search being found uncon
35
Inventory - Auto - Showing
1. lawful impound
| 2. standard procedures regulating inventory
36
Inventory - Auto - Scope
1. wherever valuable/dangerous objects located
| 2. may open containers inside car (if regulated by standard procedures)
37
Inventory - Auto - Rationale
1. protect owners prop while in police custody
2. protect police against claims/disputes over lost/stolen prop
3. protect police from potential danger (objects in car)
38
Inventory - Arrest - Showing
1. lawful arrest
2. prospective incarceration
3. standard procedures regulating inventory
39
Inventory - Arrest - Scope
1. person & possessions of arrestee, incl containers
| 2. could justify a strip search; but rare
40
Inventory - Arrest - Rationale
1. Protect arrestee’s prop against theft
2. Deter false claims by arrestee
3. Prevent danger to police
4. Verify identity of arrestee
41
Consent - Showing
1. VOLUNTARY based on
a) actions of PO; &
b) internal character of party giving consent
2. Actual Authority
3. Apparent Authority
NO Authority if person against whom evidence is being offered is PRESENT & OBJECTS to search
42
Actual Authority
Mutual use of prop by persons having joint access or control for most purposes
43
Apparent Authority
* objectively reasonable belief that person giving consent has common authority
* would the facts available to PO at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the consenting party had authority over the premises?
44
Consent - Scope
* based on consent given; intent of party giving consent is controlling
* they may specify scope of search authority & terminate at any time
* absent express stmt of scope: determined based on how a reasonable person would've understood the exchange
* generally defined by the express object of the search
45
4th amendment requires that consent not be coerced in any way. Factors relevant to determination of whether a search is voluntary:
Totality of circumstances.
1. subtly coercive Q by police
2. environment where it takes place
3. possible vulnerable subjective state of person consenting
4. persons knowledge of right to refuse is a factor, but prosecution not required to prove & can still be valid even if not aware of right
46
Plain View Doctrine - Showing
1. lawful view/touch bc observation during
a) execution of valid warrant; b) search under exception to warrant; or c) from place where police lawfully entitled to be
2. PC to seize
3. lawful access
47
Plain View Doctrine - Scope
1. police may SEIZE item w/o warrant
| 2. does NOT expand search authority
48
Plain View Doctrine - Rationale
doesn't turn an initially valid (limited) search into a general one; while the inconvenience of procuring a warrant to cover an inadvertent discovery is great
49
what is a Terry search?
* Frisk = Search
* Frisk: careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a persons clothing all over their body in an attempt to find weapons
50
what is the scope of a frisk?
* determined by justification: protection of PO during stop
* limited to pat down of outer clothing to discover weapons
* going beyond necessary to determine if suspect armed = no longer valid & fruits will be supressed
51
showing & justification for investigatory stop?
Showing: PO may conduct a brief, investigatory stop when he has *reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot*
Justification: PO must be able to point to SPECIFIC & ARTICULABLE facts which, taken together w/ rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion
• in drawing inferences from the facts, PO may draw on experience & specialized training
52
reasonableness of PO's actions determined by
| 4th A Terry Stop/Seizure
balancing:
• need for search/seizure against
• invasion it entails
53
Test for whether a seizure & search were unreasonable:
1. Whether POs action was justified at its inception; and
| 2. Whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the 1st place
54
Mendenhall/Bostick Test for Seizure
1. by means of phys force or show of authority,
2. freedom of movement is restrained in such a way that a reasonable person would believe they are not free to leave
3. or feel free to decline the PO's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter
relevant factors: several POs, display of weapon, phys touching, language/tone, subjective intentions of PO only relevant if they've been conveyed
55
When a seizure is accomplished by show of authority, rather than by physical restraint, a seizure requires both:
1. Show of authority such that reasonable person would not feel free to leave, and
2. Submission
56
Factors to consider in determining RS (4th)
1. Presence in a high crime neighborhood
2. Unprovoked flight (nervous, evasive behavior)
but neither alone is enough to est RS
57
Who is entitled to claim a constitutional violation in court?
• 4th rights are personal; one person cannot assert a violation of the constitutional rights of someone else
58
Massiah Doctrine - triggering condition
* Right to counsel attaches when FORMAL ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS are begun [w/ respect to subject of stmt - offense specific]
* formal charge, arraignment preliminary hearing, indictment, information
* appointment of counsel at arraignment doesn't count as invocation
59
Massiah Doctrine - Police Action Required
* violated if gov agent DELIBERATELY ELICITS stmt in absence of counsel
* applies to indirect & surreptitious interrogation as well as those conducted at jailhouse
60
what is deliberate elicitation?
Intentionally create a situation likely to induce the accused to make an incriminating statement w/o counsel or knowingly exploit an opportunity to confront the accused w/o counsel
61
rationale for excluding stmts by an accused under 6th
1. restraint on coercive police power that would = confession & render trial an empty formality
2. right to have counsel at pretrial stage is necessary to give meaning & protection to rights to be heard at the trial itself
62
When the statement is elicited by an undercover agent, it must be shown:
1. undercover actively elicited the stmt (was not simply a passive listener); &
2. must also be a basis for attributing the stmt to the police or prosecutor (deliberate elicitation)
63
Massiah - Waiver of Right to Counsel
* burden rests on prosecution to show ∆ made an INTENTIONAL RELINQUISHMENT or ABANDONMENT OF A KNOWN RIGHT
* voluntary & knowing
64
PO fail to tell suspect lawyer is trying to contact him
6th A: suspect cannot make valid waiver
| 5th: doesn't matter
65
Anon Tips - RS for Terry Stop
* evaluate whether info establishes basis for tipster's knowledge of illegal activity & veracity, but applied in lesser RS standard
* anon tip alone would rarely be sufficient
* no firearms exception
* being able to identify someone & their location doesn't est knowledge
66
when is the line between an investigative detention & a de facto arrest crossed?
• Police forcibly remove a person from his home or other place; and
• transports him to the station, where he’s detained, although briefly, for investigative
purposes
67
transportation to & investigative dentention at station house w/o PC or judicial determination
violates 4th amendment
68
[Scope of Terry Seizure]
| Test for “whether PO actions was justified at its inception” – factors:
1. length of detention
• diligently pursued methods to confirm/dispel suspicion? did conduct of suspect prolong detention?
2. law enforcement purposes served by the stop
3. time reasonably needed to effectuate those purposes
69
can the state require a suspect to disclose their name in the course of terry stop?
yes; permitted by 4th amendment
70
terry seizure of effects - RS luggage contains drugs
when police reasonably suspect luggage contains drugs they may BRIEFLY seize it to conduct investigation designed to confirm/dispel that suspicion
71
permissible length for seizure of effects
depends on intrusiveness of the seizure
• seizure of luggage interferes w/ suspects possessory interest in luggage & suspects liberty interest
• no time limit but 90 min seizure of luggage deemed unreasonable
• must be measured by same standard that governs seizure of person (length, diligently pursuing, etc)
• transportation to station requires PC
72
protective "frisk" of car is permissible on RS that:
1. Suspect is dangerous; and
2. Weapon in car.
• Search limited to places w/in car where a weapon that could be used against PO’s could be concealed
73
can PO order driver out of a car when it has been lawfully stopped?
* Yes bc of danger posed by suspects inside stopped cars.
* Authority to require driver to exit car doesn't require any suspicion of dangerousness
* Extends to passengers as well
* Rationale: mere inconvenience on driver vs risk to PO
74
As incident of arrest inside arrestee’s house, police may conduct:
1. Precautionary search, w/o PC or RS, of closets & other spaces immediately adjoining place of arrest from which attack could be launched
2. Protective sweep of entire house if police have RS that the house harbors individual posing danger to POs
3. Scope limited to places where a person could be hiding
75
contraband detected during pat down - plain touch
1. Legitimate contact w/ the object (reason to touch)
2. Incriminating character of object immediately apparent (PC)
3. Lawful right of access to object
76
contraband detected during pat down
Removal of item from person is constitutionally justified bc seizure of an item whose identity is already known occasions no further invasions of privacy
77
Confession obtained as a result of custodial interrogation cannot be used unless:
1. suspect was given Miranda warnings; and
| 2. made a voluntary waiver
78
Test for whether a confession is voluntary: (Miranda)
whether the suspects WILL HAS BEEN OVERBORNE (fact based)
79
factors to consider in whether a suspects will has been overborne
* personal characteristics of suspect
* official pressure from massive questioning by several people
* fatigue resulting from length of interrogation & time of night
* manipulation by lies (doesn't render confession involuntary)
* actual/threat of phys violence = confession automatically involuntary
80
Miranda: triggering condition & police action required
* triggering: suspect placed in custody
* police action req'd: violation occurs if a suspect who's in custody makes a stmt in response to interrogation w/o warnings & waiver
81
Miranda: Rationale
custody + interrogation = compulsion
82
Miranda: Constitutional Basis
* stmts obtained in violation & their use at trial doesn't = con violation (so no exclusionary rule)
* warnings are not themselves protected by con, but are instead measures to ensure that the right against compulsory self-incrim is protected (5th A)
83
Miranda Warnings
1. Right to remain silent
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law
3. Right to talk to a lawyer & have him present during questioning
4. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you
5. Can decide at any time to exercise these rights
84
Miranda: Public Safety Exception
• doesn’t require suppression of stmts in response to Qs that are reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.
• Availability of this exception doesn't depend on actual motivation of PO asking Q
Elements:
1. threat to safety of PO or public
2. Q reasonably prompted by concern for public safety
85
when does Miranda become applicable? why?
* as soon as suspects freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated w/ formal arrest or its functional equivalent
* Rationale: PO has no way of knowing what charges will be
86
Miranda (custody): standard
Objective standard:
| how a REASONABLE person in suspects position would have understood his situation
87
Are characteristics of a suspect relevant to determining whether they are in custody for purposes of Miranda?
* So long as a child’s age was known to PO at time of questioning or it would be reasonably apparent to a reasonable PO, the age of the child must be included in custody analysis
* Consider other facts of case: # of police, where it happened, guns involved, handcuffs, etc.
88
What is interrogation? (miranda)
EXPRESS QUESTIONING OR ITS FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT
• incl. words/actions by police that they should've known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response
• must reflect measure of compulsion above & beyond that inherent in custody itself
• direct Q = interrogation even if not a lot of compulsion involved
89
Standard for Interrogation
Focus on perception of the suspect:
| would a person in the suspects’ circumstances perceive PO’s actions as calling for a response?
90
What is custodial interrogation?
Questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprive of his freedom of action in any significant way
91
∆ may waive right to silence and to have an attorney present during interrogation provided
(Miranda)
• waiver is KNOWING & VOLUNTARY
• for waiver to be knowing, suspect must understand:
1. Nature of right & consequences of waiver
2. He has a right to silence & any stmt will be used against him
• doesn't need to be told subject of interrogation or every possible consequence of waiver
92
What could constitute a waiver?
* express stmt that he's willing to make stmt + doesn't want attorney, followed closely by a stmt
* valid waiver will not be presumed from silent after warning + confession eventually obtained
93
Variations from the Miranda language
fine as long as the warnings reasonably convey his rights
94
Miranda rule and its requirements are met if
a suspect received adequate warnings, understands them, and has an opportunity to invoke the rights before giving any answers or admissions
95
May the police conduct a frisk whenever they make a stop?
No, need RS
96
Can police frisk someone if they believe he is dangerous but lack grounds to stop the person?
No
97
course of conduct indicating waiver (miranda)
* answer to PO's Q's
| * Thompkins: had been silent for 3 hrs then answered Q about praying for forgiveness
98
If a suspect does not want to answer/invoke right to remain silent, he can:
1. say nothing in response; or
| 2. UNAMBIGUOUSLY invoke his rights and end interrogation
99
Miranda waiver: burden
* burden placed on suspect to invoke & affirmatively demand & insist upon his rights
* prosecution has heavy burden of showing ∆ made a waiver (not easily presumed)
100
Miranda: Invocation
| A suspect who has invoked his right to silence cannot be interrogated unless:
the suspects right to cut off questioning has been SCRUPULOUSLY HONORED
• factors ct found significant in michigan v mosley: different interrogator/crime/location, passage of time
101
Edwards Rule (miranda context)
* judicially proscribed prophylaxis rule
| * voluntary waiver of right to counsel by a ∆ who has invoked right, does not constitute an effective waiver
102
Edwards Rule: rationale
After a suspect requests counsel, a waiver prompted by the authorities is itself the product of inherently compelling pressures & not purely the voluntary choice of the suspect
103
After a knowing and voluntary waiver, PO’s may continue questioning until & unless...
...suspect UNAMBIGUOUSLY requests an attorney
• If suspect makes an unambiguous or equivocal reference to an attorney, such that a reasonable officer in light of circumstances would’ve understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right, the police need to either stop Q or seek clarification
104
A suspect who has invoked his right to have counsel present during interrogation cannot be interrogated unless:
1. Counsel has been made available;
2. Suspect initiates further communication w/ police; or
3. Breaks in custody (14 day min)
105
initiation of communication
| after miranda invocation
Suspect has initiated communications that permits waiver w/o providing counsel if suspect’s comments evinced a willingness & desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation
106
Consultation with Counsel
| after miranda invocation
Once a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, the authorities may not initiate questioning of the accused w/o counsel present, whether or not the accused has consulted with his attorney
107
Edwards Rule in Massiah Context
* For 6th A purposes an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel does not erect any additional barrier to the validity of a waiver.
* Only question is whether the accused knowingly & voluntarily relinquished right to assistance
108
what does the exclusionary rule prevent?
* prosecutors from introducing evidence thats been obtained by violating con restrictions upon investigatory activity (thereby constrain & impede efforts to prove guilt at trial)
* rule is judicially created remedy designed to safeguard 4th A rights through its deterrent effect, rather than con right of party aggrieved
109
exclusionary rule application to state crim proceedings
* security of one’s privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty & as such is enforceable against the states through the due process clause
* incl. right against judicial use of illegally seized evidence. prohibits both unreasonable searches & judicial use of the fruits of illegal searches
110
Test for Standing: Search
```
• Whether the person who claims the protection of the 4th A has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place invaded
• factors:
1. guest status
2. amount of prior time/use of place
3. relationship to owner
4. right to exclude others
```
111
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
* Poisonous tree: illegal police conduct / con violation (initial illegality)
* “Fruit” of poisonous tree: primary/direct or secondary/derivative evidence obtained through police illegality
* Doctrine requires suppression of fruit of the poisonous tree
112
Limits on Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine
1. Independent Source for Evidence
2. Inevitable Discovery of Evidence
3. Attenuated casual chain between illegal police action & evidence
4. Police acted in good faith reliance on facially valid warrant or on mistaken information of outstanding warrant
113
Exceptions to Warrant Requirement
1. SILA
2. Payton
3. Plain View
4. Auto
5. Consent
6. Inventory (Auto & Arrest)
7. Exigent Circumstances
114
Independent Source for Evidence
* not an exception
* although police have acted illegally, evidence at issue was discovered through lawful means
* rule can apply even though evidence was 1st discovered unlawfully, then “re-discovered” lawfully
115
For evidence that was discovered pursuant to a search warrant following an earlier illegal search to be admissible, the prosecution must demonstrate both:
1. Judge’s decision to issue the warrant was not influenced by the illegal search; and
2. The police’s decision to apply for the warrant was not influenced by the illegal search
116
Independent Source for Evidence: Policy
While government should not profit from its illegal activity, neither should it be placed in a worse position than it would have otherwise occupied
117
Inevitable Discovery
* Exception to exclusionary rule
* Prosecution must prove by preponderance of the evidence that the evidence would have been discovered by lawful means
* Rationale: same as independent source
118
Factors relevant to whether the causal connection has become so attenuated that the fruit is no longer poisonous:
1. Administration of Miranda warnings
2. Passage of time between initial illegality and acquisition of evidence
3. Intervening events between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence (meeting with a lawyer, arraignment, etc)
4. Flagrancy of the constitutional violation**
119
Payton Doctrine in Attenuation context
no causal connection between a home entry in violation of Payton and a statement made by an arrestee outside the home
120
discovery of a witness (attenuation)
* exclusionary rule should be invoked w/ much greater reluctance where claim is based on a causal relationship between violation & discovery of live witness than when similar claim is advanced to support suppression of inanimate object
* Usually always attenuated so that the exclusionary rule doesn’t apply
121
Knock & Announce (attenuation)
can’t say evidence is fruit of poisonous tree when they had a warrant because the evidence discovered would’ve been discovered anyway
122
Inventory - Consent
| Randolph v Georgia
* Physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search is dispositive as to him, regardless of consent of fellow occupant.
* This rule applies so long as the police have not removed potentially objecting tenant for the sake of avoiding possible objection.
* Police need consent from whoever is presently in the house
123
Standing: Home
* owner: whether or not you were there when illegality happened you have standing
* 5 justices would afford standing to "almost all social guests"
124
Standing: Auto
* very fact based
| * don't necessarily need a prop/possessory interest but it helps
125
Standing
An individuals authority to challenge the lawfulness of a search or seizure conducted by a government agent
126
Exclusionary rule: Involuntary confession (based on either due process or 5th A)
Both direct fruits (stmt) & secondary fruits (incl. physical evidence & impeachment use) absent exception (e.g. attenuation)
127
Exclusionary rule: Miranda (based on 5th A)
* Stmts made w/o warnings & waiver, except for impeachment or if Q prompted by public safety concern.
* Compare ineffective warnings b/c of “question first”
128
Exclusionary rule: based on 6th A right to assistance of counsel
Both direct fruits (stmt) & secondary fruits (incl. physical evidence) absent exception (e.g. attenuation), but stmt admissible for impeachment
129
Miranda: Invocation
| Initiation by different officers about different crimes
Suspect who invoked counsel during custodial interrogation may not be questioned by different officer about different offense unless he initiates further communication
130
Attachment of Right to Counsel: Offense Specific nature
* Attaches only for offenses w/ which an individual has been formally charged (but also encompasses offenses that would be considered the same offense even if not formally charged)
* Two offenses are the same when, and only when, all the statutory elements of one offense are included within the statutory elements of the other offense
131
good faith exception: rationale
You cannot/need not deter a PO from acting in objectively reasonable manner; it is not necessary to punish police for doing what they are supposed to do
132
what does the good faith exception apply to?
only searches and seizures
133
good faith exception: where it does not apply
* PO obtains warrant based on affidavit containing knowingly/recklessly false info
* issuing magistrate wholly abandoned judicial role
* warrant based on affidavit so lacking indica of PC as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable
* so facially deficient in failing to particularize place to be search/thing to be seized that POs cannot presume valid
134
good faith exception: requirements
1. evidence discovered during a search under a facially valid warrant
2. a reasonably well-trained PO would've believed that the warrant was valid
