Crim Proc final

Question 1

What is the 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants?

Answer 1

-particularity requirement
-an affidavit supporting probable cause
-the knock and announce rule

Question 2

What is the 4th Amendment particularity requirement?

Answer 2

a warrant must specifically identify the person or place to be searched and the items or persons to be seized

Question 3

What has the Supreme Court said about searching containers?

Answer 3

Police can search containers found within the passenger compartment of the car if it is within reach and if the occupant is arrested then officers can search compartments and any containers inside

Question 4

US v. Rodney: scope of consent search

Answer 4

Dylan Rodney was convicted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine after a crotch search conducted by Detective Vance Beard revealed hidden drugs. Rodney appealed the decision, arguing that his consent to the body search was involuntary and that the search exceeded the scope of his consent.

Question 5

What did US v. Rodney say about the scope of consent searches?

Answer 5

A general consent to a search of a citizen’s “person” in a public place does not include consent to touch the genital or breast areas.

Question 6

What is an emergency search?

Answer 6

based on idea that it’s sometimes impractical to require officers to obtain warrants before they search

Question 7

What emergency search would justify police going into a home to search without a search warrant?

Answer 7

Officers can enter a home without a warrant if they believe there are guns or bombs inside the home that are dangerous to the community

Question 8

What did the US Supreme Court say in Wilson v. Arkansas regarding knock and no knock search warrants?

Answer 8

SCOTUS decided that Sharlene Wilson’s conviction for possession of illegal drugs, seized during a no-knock entry into her home, didn’t meet Fourth Amendment “reasonable search” requirements.

Question 9

What are the factors that support no knock search warrants?

Answer 9

prevent violence, destruction of evidence, and escape of suspects

Question 10

What is the law regarding third party consent searches?

Answer 10

Actual Authority: Law enforcement can conduct a search if the person giving consent has actual authority over the property. This typically includes homeowners, landlords, or others with legal control over the premises.
Apparent Authority: Even if the person giving consent does not have actual authority, law enforcement may conduct a search if they reasonably believe the person has the authority to give consent. This belief must be based on facts known to the officers at the time.
Shared Access: If multiple individuals share access to the property, any one of them may generally consent to a search. However, if one person objects to the search, their objection typically overrides the consent of others.
Limits of Consent: The scope of consent is limited to areas or items that the person giving consent has authority over. For example, a roommate may consent to a search of common areas but not to a search of another roommate’s private bedroom.
Revocation of Consent: Consent to search can be revoked at any time, either verbally or by actions that indicate withdrawal of consent.
Special Circumstances: There are exceptions to the general rules, such as in cases of emergency situations or when law enforcement has obtained a valid search warrant.

Question 11

What is actual authority to consent?

Answer 11

third-party consent searches aren’t valid unless the person consenting actually has legal authority to consent for another person

Question 12

What is apparent authority to consent?

Answer 12

third-party consent searches are valid only if the officer reasonably believes that the individual has actual authority to consent for another person

Question 13

Did the Supreme Court adopt actual or apparent authority to consent?

Answer 13

apparent authority to consent

Question 14

Chimel v. California: search incident to an arrest

Answer 14

the Supreme Court reversed Ted Chimel’s burglary conviction because his home was searched without a warrant or his consent.

History:
Ted Chimel was convicted for burglarizing a coin shop and appealed to the Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.

Facts:
Police arrived at Chimel’s home with an arrest warrant, and despite his objection, conducted a search without a search warrant. They seized various items, including coins, without legal authorization.

Opinion:
Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, ruled that while police can search an arrestee and the immediate area for weapons or evidence, searching areas beyond the arrest location requires a search warrant unless specific circumstances justify the search.

Dissent:
Justice White argued that the search was reasonable given the circumstances and the risk of evidence removal if police had left to obtain a warrant.

In conclusion, the Court held that the search of Chimel’s home was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment, leading to the reversal of his conviction.

Question 15

Arizona v. Gant: search instant to an arrest when arrest is made from motor vehicle

Answer 15

addressed Fourth Amendment challenges to car searches incident to a traffic offense after officers arrested Rodney Gant.

Background:
Gant was convicted of drug offenses but appealed, arguing the search of his car violated the Fourth Amendment.

Facts:
Police, acting on a tip, found Gant near his house and arrested him for driving with a suspended license. They handcuffed him and secured him in a patrol car. Despite this, they searched his car and found drugs and a gun.

Opinion:
The Court ruled that a search incident to arrest of a vehicle is justified only if the arrestee is unsecured and within reach of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or if there’s reason to believe evidence of the offense is in the vehicle. Neither applied to Gant, making the search unreasonable.

Concurring Opinion:
Justice Scalia argued that traditional safety concerns don’t justify the Belton rule, which allows car searches incident to arrest. He proposed abandoning this rule.

Dissent:
Justice Alito disagreed, stating that the Belton rule clearly permits such searches and argued for its retention.

In summary, Gant’s conviction was overturned because the search of his car was deemed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Question 16

US v. Robinson: whether or not police are able to search instant to arrest for motor vehicle violation

Answer 16

Officer Richard Jenks arrested Willie Robinson for driving without a license and searched him, finding heroin in his coat pocket. Robinson’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied, leading to his conviction. SCOTUS upheld the conviction, establishing the Robinson rule, which allows officers to search anyone they arrest without needing additional justification. This rule prioritizes officer safety and avoids the need for detailed analysis of each search. SCOTUS justifies the rule based on the danger to officers during arrests and the impracticality of reviewing every police decision. While some state courts have rejected the rule, others have adopted it. However, SCOTUS clarified that automatic searches incident to traffic citations are not reasonable under the Robinson rule.

Question 17

Knowles v. Iowa: search instant to citation

Answer 17

Knowles, who was stopped for speeding in Newton, Iowa. The officer issued him a citation instead of arresting him. However, the officer conducted a full search of Knowles’ car and found marijuana. Knowles was then arrested and charged with drug offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the search was unlawful, but the motion was denied. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the decision.

SCOTUS reversed the decision, stating that automatic searches incident to traffic citations are not reasonable under the Robinson rule. The Court reasoned that the historical justifications for the “search incident to arrest” exception, namely officer safety and preservation of evidence, were not applicable in this case. A routine traffic stop is brief and less dangerous compared to a custodial arrest, so the need for a full search is not justified. Additionally, all the evidence needed for the traffic offense was already obtained through the citation, so there was no need for further search to preserve evidence. Therefore, extending the “bright-line rule” of a full search to situations like traffic citations was not warranted.

The judgment of the Iowa Supreme Court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Question 18

Can police still search someone if they are not taking them into custody, but giving them a citation or summon?

Answer 18

No because of The Robinson Rule, but if the officer had probable cause to believe they were dangerous then yes

Question 19

Illinois v. Rodriguez: search of a suspect’s apartment, based on consent of suspect’s former girlfriend

Answer 19

In Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), the Supreme Court ruled on the validity of a search conducted in Edward Rodriguez’s apartment based on Gail Fischer’s apparent authority. Fischer, Rodriguez’s former partner, accompanied police to the apartment where they found drugs. Rodriguez moved to suppress the evidence, arguing Fischer lacked authority. The Circuit Court granted the motion, but the Supreme Court reversed.

The Court held that for third-party consent searches, the police must reasonably believe the consenting party has authority. However, in this case, Fischer did not have common authority over the apartment, as she had moved out and was only an occasional visitor. The Court rejected the state’s argument that the police’s reasonable belief in Fischer’s authority validated the search, emphasizing that such searches must be objectively reasonable. The dissenting opinion argued against expanding third-party consent exceptions, asserting that individuals’ privacy rights should not be compromised without proper authority.

Question 20

What are the exceptions to a search warrant?

Answer 20

where police have probable cause to believe that there’s evidence of a crime in a vehicle, there is pure probable cause where the police have probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime in the car or contraband of illegal items in the car

Question 21

Wyoming v. Houghton: police searching containers in a car

Answer 21

the Supreme Court examined whether searching Sandra Houghton’s purse fell under the vehicle-exception rule.

Background:
Sandra Houghton was convicted of possessing methamphetamine in Wyoming, but the state’s Supreme Court reversed the decision. SCOTUS then took up the case.

Key Points:

During a routine traffic stop, a patrol officer found drug paraphernalia in the car and searched Houghton’s purse.
The Wyoming Supreme Court ruled the search violated Houghton’s rights, stating the officer should have known the purse belonged to a passenger and lacked probable cause to search it.
SCOTUS, in a majority opinion led by Scalia, held that officers, with probable cause, can search containers in a vehicle, including those belonging to passengers.
Breyer, concurring, noted the limitations of the ruling to automobile searches and containers within.
Dissenting, Stevens argued the search infringed on privacy rights and the officer lacked probable cause.
In short, SCOTUS decided officers can search passengers’ belongings in a vehicle if there’s probable cause, reversing the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision.

Question 22

What does grabbable area mean?

Answer 22

the arrested person and the area under her immediate physical control in searches incident to arrests

Question 23

What is an inventory search?

Answer 23

routine inventory of an impounded vehicle

Question 24

What permits police to conduct inventory searches?

Answer 24

the
vehicle must be lawfully in police custody at the time of the
inventory, and second, officers conducting the inventory must
be acting pursuant to an established duty to protect the property found within the vehicle.3

Question 25

What has the Supreme Court said about searches at international borders?

Answer 25

they do not require reasonable suspicion to back up lengthy detentions and frisks, including examining purses, wallets, pockets, and even dog sniffs

Question 26

Do the police need a warrant/probable cause for routine searches at international borders?

Answer 26

They do not require warrants or probable cause or any objective basis at all

Question 27

What are the 3 theories of why probationers and parolees have diminished 4th Amendment rights?

Answer 27

-suspected of renewed criminal activity creates a potential confrontation between a fundamental constitutional guarantee
-society’s legitimate interest in correctional programs which rehabilitate released offenders and prevent them from lapsing back into crime
-court’sreuse to apply the exclusionary rule

Question 28

What has the Supreme Court said about strip searches of inmates in prison, is it constitutional?

Answer 28

it violates the 4th Amendment

Question 29

NJ v. TLO: searches of students in schools

Answer 29

T.L.O., a 14-year-old student, was caught smoking in a New Jersey high school restroom. When confronted by an administrator, she denied it. He searched her purse, finding cigarettes and rolling paper, suspecting marijuana use. Further search revealed drug-related items. Police were called, leading to T.L.O.’s confession to selling marijuana. Despite a Fourth Amendment challenge, she was found delinquent in Juvenile Court. The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Question 30

Sampson v. California: searching parole’s homes

Answer 30

In Samson v. California (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could search parolees’ homes without warrants or individualized reasonable suspicion. Donald Curtis Samson, a parolee, was searched by Officer Alex Rohleder based solely on his parolee status and was found with methamphetamine. The Court held that parolees have diminished privacy expectations and the state’s interest in reducing recidivism outweighs privacy concerns. Justices Thomas, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Alito concurred, while Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented, arguing that suspicionless searches undermine Fourth Amendment protections.

Question 31

Vernonia school district v. Acton: random drug testing of students in schools

Answer 31

an Oregon school board’s random drug-testing policy for student athletes was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Question 32

Miranda v. Arizona: nobody should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Answer 32

law enforcement officers must inform individuals of their constitutional rights

Question 33

What are the different rationales for suppressing or not allowing forced confessions?

Answer 33

-Accusatorial system rationale
-protection of rights
-reliability of evidence
-fair trial
-deterrence of police misconduct
-preservation of judicial integrity

Question 34

What is an implied waiver test and an express waiver test?

Answer 34

An implied waiver test is waiving the right against self-incrimination is valid only if the totality of circumstances in each case adds up to proof that, before suspects talked, they knew they had the right to remain silent and they knew they were giving up the right
An express waiver test is waiving the right against self-incrimination is valid only if the suspect specifically says or writes that she knows her rights, knows she’s giving them up, and knows the consequences of giving them up

Question 35

bergamer v. Mccarty: whether or not an interrogation is a custodial interrogation

Answer 35

the Supreme Court ruled that brief questioning during a traffic stop did not constitute “custodial interrogation.”

Richard McCarty was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs after being stopped by Trooper Williams for weaving on the highway. Williams noticed McCarty’s impaired state and proceeded to question him about intoxicants. McCarty made self-incriminating statements before being formally arrested and charged.

The Court determined that a traffic stop, while limiting the driver’s freedom, did not necessarily constitute “custodial interrogation” requiring Miranda warnings. Factors such as the brevity of the stop and the public nature of the encounter reduced the coercive atmosphere. Since McCarty was not informed of his rights and the interaction was not akin to formal arrest, his statements made before being arrested were admissible.

Question 36

What is custodial interrogation?

Answer 36

the questioning that occurs after the police have taken suspects into custody

Question 37

NY v. Quarles: creates an exception to Miranda rule

Answer 37

the Supreme Court held that the public safety outweighed Miranda rights, allowing an incriminating statement obtained without Miranda warnings to be admissible.

Facts:
During a late-night patrol, officers responded to a rape report and were informed that the suspect, Quarles, was armed and in a nearby supermarket. Upon locating Quarles, he fled and was caught by Officer Kraft, who found an empty holster on him. Without reading Miranda rights, Kraft asked Quarles about the gun’s location, and Quarles pointed to it. After retrieving the gun, Kraft then read Quarles his rights and questioned him further.

Opinion:
The Court recognized a “public safety” exception to Miranda, asserting that concerns for public safety could override the need for Miranda warnings in certain circumstances. In this case, the immediate need to locate the gun to prevent potential harm to the public justified the failure to administer Miranda warnings beforehand. The exception aimed to balance public safety with constitutional rights.

Dissent:
Justices O’Connor and Marshall dissented. O’Connor argued that Miranda protections were essential and that Quarles’ statement should have been suppressed since it was obtained without Miranda warnings. Marshall argued that the majority’s decision undermined Miranda’s protections and misinterpreted the Fifth Amendment, emphasizing that coercion was not limited to physical force and that exceptions eroded constitutional safeguards.

Question 38

What are factors that created a risk of false confessions?

Answer 38

intellectual disability
sleep deprivation
adolescence
interrogation methods
coercion by law enforcement

Question 39

What are the 3 constitutional provisions that deal with interrogations and police questioning of suspects?

Answer 39

Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment

Question 40

What type of evidence does the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination apply to?

Answer 40

applies to testimonial evidence, which includes any communication or statement made by an individual that could potentially incriminate them in a criminal offense. This includes verbal statements, written statements, and potentially other forms of communication, such as gestures, that convey information.

Question 41

What are the different tests of interrogation?

Answer 41

the objective test
the totality of circumstances
the functional equivalent test

Question 42

What Supreme Court case was the functional equivalent of a question test found?

Answer 42

Rhode Island v. Innis

Question 43

What 3 elements must a defendant show to prove their rights against self-incrimination were violated?

Answer 43

compulsion
custodial situation
interrogation

Question 44

What have researchers found with respect to cross racial identifications?

Answer 44

where a witness identifies someone of a different race, are generally less accurate compared to identifications within the same racial group

Question 45

What are the 3 phases of memory?

Answer 45

encoding
storage
retrieval

Question 46

What has the Supreme Court said about suggestive lineups?

Answer 46

such procedures can lead to unreliable identifications and violate the due process rights of the accused

Question 47

What is a sequential photographic lineup vs. a simultaneous photographic lineup? Which one is preferred?

Answer 47

Sequential lineup is people or photographs that are presented to the witness one at a time
Simultaneous lineup is the eyewitness views all the people or photos at the same time

Question 48

What is relative judgement?

Answer 48

cognitive process where individuals make judgments or decisions by comparing different options or stimuli relative to each other rather than evaluating each option independently based on an absolute standard

Question 49

Manson v. Brathwaite: unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure

Answer 49

the Supreme Court ruled that Trooper Jimmy Glover’s single photo show-up identification did not create a “very substantial likelihood” of a false identification.

History:
Nowell Brathwaite was convicted of possession and sale of heroin in Connecticut. After appealing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed his conviction, leading to a Supreme Court review.

Facts:
Trooper Glover, a Black undercover officer, attempted a narcotics purchase, but the transaction was with someone other than the intended target. Glover observed the seller for a few minutes, providing a detailed description later. Brathwaite was arrested later, and Glover identified him from a photograph.

Opinion:
The Court debated between a per se exclusion rule (rejecting evidence from suggestive identification procedures) and a totality approach (considering reliability despite suggestiveness). They concluded the totality approach was appropriate here, finding Glover’s identification reliable based on several factors.

Concurring Opinion (Stevens):
Stevens suggested legislative action rather than judicial rulemaking to address identification issues.

Dissent (Marshall):
Marshall argued strongly for exclusion, citing the potential for misidentification due to suggestive procedures. He criticized the reliance on a single photograph and the pressure on Glover to identify Brathwaite.

In summary, the Court ruled that despite suggestive procedures, Glover’s identification was reliable, applying a totality approach rather than a per se exclusion rule.

Question 50

US v. Wade: defendant 6th Amendment right to council being violated with respect to an identification procedure

Answer 50

Wade participated in a lineup conducted after he was indicted, without his lawyer present. SCOTUS held that the lineup after indictment without his lawyer there violated Wade’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Gilbert v. California (1967) held that a “bright-line” per se exclusionary rule banned the introduction of an out-of-court lineup identification made in violation of Jesse James Gilbert’s right to counsel.

Question 51

Melendez Diaz v. Massachusetts: 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses in the context of a scientist and Russ ipse dixit statutes

Answer 51

the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants the right to cross-examine forensic lab technicians. The case involved Luis Melendez-Diaz’s conviction for cocaine-related charges in Massachusetts, where the prosecution introduced certificates of analysis from state lab technicians without their in-court testimony. Melendez-Diaz objected, citing the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the right to face witnesses against oneself.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia and joined by four other justices, emphasized that these certificates were testimonial statements akin to live testimony and therefore fell under the scope of the Confrontation Clause. The dissent, led by Justice Kennedy and joined by two other justices, criticized the decision, arguing that it disrupted established rules for admitting scientific evidence and imposed burdens on the criminal justice system by requiring lab technicians to appear in court for testimony.

Ultimately, the Court’s ruling affirmed that defendants have the right to confront and cross-examine forensic analysts whose reports are used as evidence against them, even if it imposes logistical challenges on the legal process.

Question 52

What is the exclusionary rule?

Answer 52

prevents the government from presenting evidence in trial which was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against illegal search and seizure

Question 53

What are the exceptions to the exclusionary rule?

Answer 53

attenuation exception, independent source exception, the inevitable discovery exception, collateral use exception

Question 54

What are the 3 justifications or rationales for the exclusionary rule?

Answer 54

deterrence of police misconduct
preservation of judicial integrity
protection of defendant rights

Question 55

What is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

Answer 55

if evidence is obtained unlawfully, any further evidence discovered as a result of that initial illegality is also tainted and therefore inadmissible in court.

Question 56

Hudson v. Michigan: whether or not evidence should be excluded if the police violate the knock and announce rule, but still have a warrant

Answer 56

the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that failure to follow the knock-and-announce rule doesn’t automatically lead to evidence exclusion if officers have a valid search warrant. Police arrived at Hudson’s home with a warrant, found drugs and a gun, but entered shortly after knocking. Hudson argued this violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The majority opinion, written by Scalia, emphasized the exclusionary rule’s high costs and limited its application to cases where its deterrent benefits outweigh these costs. They concluded that the rule wasn’t meant to address knock-and-announce violations, as its purpose is different from protecting against illegal searches.

Kennedy concurred, noting the historical importance of the knock-and-announce requirement but agreeing that the evidence’s discovery wasn’t directly linked to the violation.

Breyer, in dissent, argued that excluding evidence obtained through knock-and-announce violations is crucial to deter unlawful police behavior and uphold Fourth Amendment rights. He questioned the majority’s assumption that alternative remedies would effectively deter violations and suggested that allowing for no-knock warrants would address officer safety concerns while ensuring constitutional compliance.

Question 57

What case made the states follow the exclusionary rule?

Answer 57

Mapp v. Ohio

Question 58

What is the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule?

Answer 58

when an officer believes they are acting in good faith, like when they arrest someone thinking a warrant was good when it really wasn’t, there was no deterrent impact so the court says that suppressing the evidence would have a high social cost but on the hand there’s no deterrent impact which is the primary rationale for the exclusionary rule

Question 59

Herring v. US: dispatch informing police there is an outstanding warrant for someone in the database, but the warrant no longer exists it was never taken out of database, so police arrest person and search them and evidence of a crime

Answer 59

the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained during a search incident to an arrest, even if the arrest was made based on a mistaken belief of an outstanding warrant due to police negligence, is admissible in court. Bennie Dean Herring was arrested after a warrant mix-up, leading to the discovery of drugs and a firearm. The Court held that exclusion of evidence isn’t automatic for Fourth Amendment violations and depends on the culpability of police conduct and the potential to deter future misconduct. They affirmed that suppression isn’t warranted for isolated negligence. The dissent argued for the application of the exclusionary rule to deter police errors, especially given the increasing reliance on electronic databases in law enforcement, highlighting concerns about accuracy and individual liberties.

Question 60

US v. Leon: applied to officers who relied on judges

Answer 60

When police act under a warrant that is invalid for lack of probable cause, the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police acted “in objectively reasonable reliance” on the subsequently invalidated search warrant. We (perhaps confusingly) called this objectively reasonable reliance “good faith.” Shortly thereafter we extended these holdings to warrantless administrative searches performed in good-faith reliance on a statute later declared unconstitutional. Finally, we applied this good-faith rule to police who reasonably relied on mistaken information in a court’s database that an arrest warrant was outstanding.

Question 61

What exception to the exclusionary rule demonstrates most clearly and powerfully the Supreme Court’s commitment to the balancing test?

Answer 61

the good faith exception

Question 62

What is the social cost of the exclusionary rule?

Answer 62

some guilty defendants go free and some innocent are incarcerated