Flashcards in Crim Pro Deck (158)
Commonly begins when a Police believes that a crime is occurring or has occurred
-Search and seizure of persons and/or property (4th A)
-Interrogation (5th A.)
-Identification procedures (6th A., due process clause)
-Arrest and booking (5th A., due process, 4th A., 6th A.)
Filing of a criminal complaint
-Probable cause hearing (needed if no warrant for arrest)
-Prelim hearing or grand jury
Evolution of Criminal Pro
Two competing interests:
liberty v security interests.
Social relations (race); Tech changes
Due Process Clause
14th A gave right to "due process"
-14th came into practical effect in the last 50 years. Words are vague and ambiguous:
-strength: they are general and can apply in different circumstances
-Weakness: vague and difficult to figure out how to apply
Crim Pro is anchored in bill of rights as const.L justification
Theory that incorporates crim pro in the bill of rights against state actors. 14th A.
No DP right to a grand jury
-The only thing DP requires is general applicability
Selective Incorporation Plus
Predominate theory of incorporation. Combines rights the court deems intrinsic to fundamental fairness and full incorporation of the bill of rights to the states.
Asks if any right is fundamental to our system of justice > if yes, then the right applies against the state.
Protects privacy and property interests. Two clauses: Reasonableness and Warrant
One of the clauses in 4th A. "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searched and seizures shall not be violated"
4th A seeks to protect against illegal searches and seizures.
One of the 4th A. clauses.
"and no warrants shall issue, but upon PC, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Relationship Between 4th A. Clauses
1. Close relationship: any search or seizure (s/s) conducted w/o a valid warrant is therefore unreasonable
2. [Dominant interpretation] two independent clauses: warrant clause tells us how warrants should issue but nothing about whether or when they must issue. No reasonableness in warrant clause, can have reasonable searches that are not supported by a warrant
-Remedy to 4th A. violations.
-Def: The prosecution can't introduce evidence in a criminal trial against a ∆ when the evidence was gathered by a search and/or seizure that violated the ∆s 4th A rights (i.e., the ∆ was unreasonably s/s).
-Ct created remedy.
-Designed to deter police from performing illegal/unreasonable s/s
Policy: Exclusionary Rule
It causes a high cost to crim justice b/c of a mistake the police made > Doesn’t say anything about the guilt of ∆, evidence could get thrown out even if the ∆ is dangerous/guilty.
-Tension b/w liberty and security interests
1. Criminal prosecution of police who violate > police wouldn’t take any risks
2. Seek damages for violations > could result in overdeterance
3. Injunctions > time to get an injunction would be problematic
4. More administrative procedures > overdeterance
Exclusionary Rule Standing
Evidence can only be suppressed when the 4th A violation occurs against that ∆
4th A. Preliminary Questions
1. Was there a search or seizure?
- If yes > ask question #2
2. Was the s/s reasonable?
- Did the search comply w/ const.L stds?
“The 4th A. protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of 4th A. protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”
Search under Katz
A violation of some type of privacy
1. Subjective prong: person must have an ACTUAL expectation of privacy.
2. Objective prong: this expectation of privacy must be REASONABLE (based on society’s expectations)
Policy: Katz Subjective Prong
Problems w/ this prong: different expectations of privacy b/c of the invent of tech, we get used to a lack of privacy, should our rights of privacy hinge so loosely on our expectations of privacy even if we have no choice about the shaping of these expectations?
Contingent on factors we may not be able to control, get used to a lack of privacy but we don’t like it
Policy: Katz Objective Prong
Problems w/ this prong: what is reasonable? Reasonableness can shift based on tech and we may have less privacy and not like it, maybe ct should ask if we think there should be privacy in X situation rather than if there is privacy in this situation
Katz Clause Relationship
Relationship b/w warrant and reasonableness clause is very closely connected (narrow) > a reasonable search is a search backed up w/ a warrant
Open Field Doctrine
The collection of evidence from areas not immediately adjacent to the house (not the curtilage) does not count as a search, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for activities that occur outside in open fields
FL v. Riley
1. ∆ put up privacy fences on the property; police went up 40 ft in helicopter and saw the weed, got a warrant based on these observations
2. Was there a search? Ct says there was not a search b/c there was exposure of the greenhouse to an outside observer so there were no expectations of privacy > motion to suppress was denied
3. Greenhouse was “knowingly exposed” > failed on threshold question of if there was a search…there was not a search so no need to ask if it was reasonable
Type of search. Squeezing a suitcase is a search. Physical inspection/touching = search.
- Dogs sniffing luggage is not a search, b/c no physical touching
- Sniffing car as part of a traffic stop to search is not a search > contraband has no privacy rights
- dog sniffing for drugs at front door is a search b/c this was a trespass since purpose was in search of info
Not a search. Declarant bears the risk of telling someone D's criminal plans. ∆ knowingly exposed the information to the public (i.e. the gov) and privacy requires secrecy
Trash on the Curb
Not a search b/c of the 3rd party doctrine > conveyed the trash to trash co. so there was knowing exposure and there can't be an expectation of privacy.
Counterarg: gov requires the putting of trash on curb; the line from Katz “what a person seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be const.Ly protected.” Concern w/ modern tech and phones.
Search. It involves a house which is very protected under 4th A.
Rule: “Obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of the home that could not otherwise have been obtained w/out physical intrusion…constitutes a search – at least where…the technology in question is not in general public use.”
- The last sentence is problematic b/c tech proliferates > as it becomes more widespread then our expectation of privacy changes
Electronic Tracking Devices
When placed on a car it is a physical trespass and thus a search