Crim Pro - Model Rule Statements Flashcards
(16 cards)
proper arrest
A proper arrest is one that is based on probable cause. Facts supporting probable cause may come from a number of different sources including a police officer’s personal observations.
plain view doctrine
A warrantless search is valid if it is reasonable in scope and if it is made incident to a lawful arrest. Under the plain view doctrine, if an item is in public view it may be seized without a warrant since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for such an item. The Fourth Amendment does not require police to obtain a warrant to search a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a criminal activity.
custodial interrogation
Custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody. A person under arrest is, by definition, in custody and any police questioning of the person under arrest would thus be custodial interrogation. Questioning of a suspect by a police officer subsequent to an arrest must be preceded by Miranda warnings and a waiver or the suspect’s Miranda rights are violated.
violations of Miranda and “fruit of the poisonous tree”
The Supreme Court has indicated that violations of Miranda do not necessarily support the “fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree” doctrine, at least with respect to subsequent statements by the defendant. Isolated negligence by law enforcement personnel will not trigger the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule would only be triggered here if the conduct of the police was shown to be sufficiently deliberate and a pattern of conduct that exclusion would deter.
when interrogation must stop
Interrogation of an arrestee must stop once the arrestee invokes the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment. The interrogation must stop until counsel is present. However, the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment is not automatic. In order to invoke this right, the defendant must make a specific, unambiguous statement that he wishes to have counsel present.
double jeopardy
The Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. If a defendant’s conduct may be prosecuted as two or more crimes, then the Blockburger test is applied to determine whether the crimes constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
Under this test, each crime must require the proof of an element that the other does not in order for each to be considered as a separate offense. The double jeopardy clause generally bars successive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses. A lesser included offense is one that does not require proof of an element beyond those required by the greater offense.
prosecution’s burden in a criminal case
The Due Process Clause requires that the prosecution prove all of the elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. A mandatory presumption regarding an element of an offense violates the due-process requirement. This could include either a conclusive presumption that cannot be rebutted (which would relieve the prosecution of having to prove an element of their case) or a rebuttable mandatory presumption (which shifts the burden of proof regarding the element of the offense).
facts that can increase the maximum sentence
Any fact, other than a prior conviction, that can be used to increase a sentence beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum must be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and established beyond a reasonable doubt. A fact is considered an element of a crime, as opposed to a sentencing enhancement, when it can increase the maximum sentence imposed. The failure to abide by the above procedure is a violation of the defendant’s due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights to notice and a jury trial, both of which are incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona
In Miranda v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a suspect has a constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment not to be compelled to make incriminating statements in the police interrogation process. Any incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent trial unless the police provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination by informing the suspect of her Miranda rights.
To invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, a suspect must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting her desire to have counsel present. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right. However, once that right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present.
imprisonment and custodial interrogation
Imprisonment alone does not necessarily create a custodial situation within the meaning of Miranda. The questioning of a prisoner, who is removed from the general prison population, about events that took place outside the prison is not categorically “custodial” for Miranda purposes. A standard, objective “totality of circumstances” analysis applies when an inmate is interviewed, including consideration of the language that is used in summoning the prisoner to the interview and the manner in which the interrogation is conducted.
In addition, police may re-open interrogation of a suspect who has asserted his Fifth Amendment right to counsel if there has been a 14-day or more break in custody, such as the release back into the general prison population of a suspect who has been incarcerated for another crime. In such circumstances, the officers must give fresh Miranda warnings and get a valid waiver before beginning questioning.
Miranda rights reasonably conveyed
Once a custodial interrogation begins, anything the defendant says is inadmissible until the defendant is informed of their Miranda rights and the defendant waives those rights. Law-enforcement officials must inform suspects of their right to consult an attorney and to have the attorney present during an interrogation and that an attorney will be appointed to represent indigent defendants. The warnings, which must be given before interrogation begins, need not be a verbatim repetition of the language used in the Miranda decision, but simply must “reasonably convey” the rights required by Miranda.
specific statement for Miranda to apply
The right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment is not automatic. To invoke the right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment, a suspect must make a specific, unambiguous statement asserting her desire to have counsel present. If a suspect makes an ambiguous statement regarding the right to counsel, the police are not required to end the interrogation or to clarify whether the suspect wants to invoke the right. However, once that right to counsel is invoked, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present.
custody
Custody is an objective, totality-of-the-circumstances test: whether “a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.
The Supreme Court has held that “[n]ot all restraints on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda.”
More specifically, the Court has found that “when a person who is already serving a term of imprisonment is questioned, . . . the ordinary restrictions of prison life, while no doubt unpleasant, are expected and familiar and thus do not involve the same ‘inherently compelling pressures’ that are often present when a suspect is yanked from familiar surroundings in the outside world and subjected to interrogation in a police station.”
incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation
An incriminating statement obtained as the result of custodial interrogation may not be used against the suspect at a subsequent criminal trial unless the police first provided procedural safeguards effective to secure the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination (i.e., Miranda warnings). Miranda protections apply only to testimonial or compelled communicative evidence by a suspect who is in custody and under interrogation. To be testimonial, the communication must relate to a factual assertion or disclose information. Custody can only be established if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would believe she was in custody.
Once a custodial suspect invokes the right to counsel
Once a custodial suspect invokes the right to counsel, all interrogation must stop until counsel is present. But, if the suspect voluntarily initiates communication with the police after invoking his right to counsel, a statement made by the suspect that is not made in response to the interrogation (e.g., a statement that the suspect spontaneously blurts out) may be admissible. Initiating communication does not include comments relating to routine incidents of custody. Statements that clearly indicate a willingness to speak about matters relating to the investigation are deemed to initiate communication.
how long do the police have to honor the invocation of Miranda rights
The obligation for the police to honor the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel terminates 14 days after the suspect is released from custody.
