Criminal Due Process Quiz #2

Question 1

Silverthorne v. US (1920)

Answer 1

Silverthornes are arrested on a single charge for company tax trouble
- Govt holds them in custody while federal law enforcement goes to their office and seize company documents and financial books without any legal authority/warrant; documents are photocopied
- Silverthorne is released and petitions the court for the return of the illegally seized documents
- District attorney says they found evidence of more crimes in the photocopied documents and frame a new indictment based on new knowledge
- Court orders the return of the original documents from Silverthorne and gets rid of photocopies

Question 2

Silverthorne issue

Answer 2

Can the government use the photocopies made of the illegally seized evidence to frame a new indictment?

Question 3

Silverthorne holding

Answer 3

The government cannot use the photocopies; Silverthorne wins

Question 4

Silverthorne reasoning

Answer 4

The government obtained the company papers by illegal means, therefore it could not use the knowledge gained from its wrongs to frame a new indictment and use the evidence in a prosecution

Question 5

Weeks v. US (1914)

Answer 5

• Weeks is suspected of transporting lottery tickets in the mail
• LOCAL police enter Weeks home without a warrant (told by neighbor where spare key was), search the home, and take possession of various papers and articles
• Info and evidence gathered by local police is then turned over to US Marshal
• Marshal goes to the home and takes more letters and envelopes found in a drawer WITHOUT A WARRANT (let in by a boarder)

Question 6

Weeks issue

Answer 6

Did the search and seizure of Weeks’ home violate the 4th Amendment and should Weeks’ papers be allowed as evidence?

Question 7

Weeks holding

Answer 7

Weeks both wins and loses

Question 8

Weeks reasoning

Answer 8

Search 1 - papers are allowed as evidence because the 4th A at the time does not apply to state and local police
Search 2 - Weeks gets his papers back for the second search only because it was conducted by a federal bad actor

Question 9

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Answer 9

• 3 police officers arrive at Mapp’s home looking for a bomb fugitive
• Police demand entry but Mapp denies unless they can produce a warrant, which they cannot, so they leave
• Police return 3 hours later with 4 more officers and try to enter Mapp’s home again, still without a warrant; Mapp does not answer immediately so officers forcibly enter
• Mapp demands to see a warrant; an officer holds up a piece of paper he claims to be a warrant; Mapp shoves the warrant down her shirt which the officer forcibly removes and then handcuffs Mapp
• Police proceed to search pretty much everywhere; they find 4 “obscene” books and several “obscene” sketches

Question 10

Mapp issue

Answer 10

Mapp’s 2 issues - Ohio’s obscenity law violates the right to privacy (1st A), and the officer’s behavior was so egregious that it shocks the conscience (Rochin)
USSC’s issue - Can illegally seized evidence be used in a STATE criminal trial?

Question 11

Mapp holding

Answer 11

Illegally seized evidence cannot be used in a state criminal trial; Mapp wins (ER is now applicable to states)

Question 12

Mapp reasoning

Answer 12

1. Maintaining judicial integrity (compelling respect for the constitution; if someone goes free it’ll be because the law says they’re free)
2. Deterrence (deter police officers from commiting 4th A violations at the state level)

Question 13

FLA v. Jardines (2013)

Answer 13

• Police receive and unverified Crime Stoppers tip that Jardines was growing marijuana at his home; a month passes between receiving the tip and doing something about it
• Police bring drug-sniffing dog to Jardine’s front porch where the dog gave a positive alert for narcotics
• Police obtain a warrant for a search which revealed marijuana plants
• Different from Place because the sniff takes place at the home vs in public

Question 14

Jardines issue

Answer 14

Is a dog sniff at the front porch of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog a 4th A search requiring probably cause?

Question 15

Jardines holding

Answer 15

Yes, it is a search and requires probable cause; Jardines wins

Question 16

Jardines reasoning

Answer 16

The dog sniffing the base of the front door gives the police information about the inside of the house that they otherwise would not have had unless they entered the house (akin to Kyllo)
The police and dog also physically trespassed on Jardines’ porch so it’s automatically a search (trespass doctrine)

Question 17

Rodriguez v. US (2015)

Answer 17

• Officer stops Rodriguez for driving on highway shoulder, checks the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passengers, and issues a warning
• Officer then asks to walk his K-9 around the vehicle; Rodriguez refuses
• Officer detains Rodriguez until another officer arrives and retrieves his K-9 who alerts to the presence of drugs
• 7-8 minutes elapsed between the officer issuing the warning and the dog alerting
• Officer searches the vehicle which turns up methamphetamine

Question 18

Rodriguez issue

Answer 18

Is the use of a K-9 unit, after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a violation of the 4th A prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures?

Question 19

Rodriguez holding

Answer 19

Yes, it is a violation to use a K-9 unit after the conclusion of a traffic stop and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

Question 20

Rodriguez reasoning

Answer 20

• The mission of the stop determines its allowable duration, therefore the authority of the stop ends when the mission has been accomplished
• A seizure unrelated to the reason for the stop is lawful only so long as it does not measurably extend the duration of the stop
• Unduly delay in MA is an hour

Question 21

US v. Place (1983)

Answer 21

• Place, at an airport, alerts the suspicion of drug agents who believed he was carrying narcotics based on his behavior and discrepancies in his luggage tags
• Place agrees to a search of his bags but his place was about to leave so agents refuse to search; instead relay this info to agents at Place’s destination airport
• Agents meet Place at destination and seize bags without his consent
• Bags subjected to “sniff” test by drug dogs 90 minutes after the seizure; dog signals to presence of controlled substances
• Agents obtain a warrant and find cocaine in one of the bags

Question 22

Place issue

Answer 22

Did the “sniff test” by the dog constitute a search?

Question 23

Place holding

Answer 23

No, the “sniff test” did not constitute a search; Place loses

Question 24

Place reasoning

Answer 24

The investigative technique is far less intrusive than a full-on search; they didn’t open the luggage, it was less of an embarassment/public inconvenience, and it was limited in both manner and content revealed from the procedure
IN A PUBLIC AREA

Question 25

Rochin v. CA (1952)

Answer 25

- Police obtain info that Rochin was selling narcotics and enter his house without a warrant - Rochin is in bed with his wife; swallows capsules containing morphine to dispose of evidence - Officers tackle Rochin and attempt to extract the capsules by force; unsuccessful, they handcuff him and take him to the hospital where doctors are instructed by police to pump Rochin’s stomach against his will - Capsules were obtained and used to convict Rochin

Question 26

Rochin issue

Answer 26

Is forcing Rochin to vomit to obtain the capsules considered a search by the 4th A, making the evidence inadmissible?

Question 27

Rochin holding

Answer 27

Yes, this is a search and the evidence is inadmissible; Rochin wins

Question 28

Rochin reasoning

Answer 28

Police officers violated the defendant's privacy, and the court found no difference between a verbal confession obtained by physical abuse and a confession taken from the defendant's body by physical abuse ER does not apply to states yet, Court instead uses the Shocks the Conscience test (determines which situations are so unjust or wrong that the court must intervene)

Question 29

Byars v. US (1927)

Answer 29

- Federal agents invited to execute a search warrant secured by Iowa police to search for illegal alcoholic beverages (prohibition) - Agent found strip stamps in Byars' home (indicate that alcohol has been purchased) - Stamps admitted as evidence

Question 30

Byars issue

Answer 30

Were the stamps obtained illegally according to the 4th Amendment?

Question 31

Byars holding

Answer 31

Yes, the stamps were obtained illegally; Byars wins

Question 32

Byars reasoning

Answer 32

A federal agent conducted the search alongside local police, so the 4th Amendment applies Local police can no longer participate in Silver Platter Doctrine

Question 33

Silver Platter Doctrine

Answer 33

Allowed local police to be free to conduct unreasonable/illegal searches and seizures and then deliver the evidence to the federal prosecutors/police "on a silver platter" because the Exclusionary Rule did not apply to local police until Mapp

Question 34

Wolf v. Colorado (1949)

Answer 34

Law enforcement breaks into Wolf’s office and copy medical records indicating he was conspiring to perform abortions; Wolf objected to evidence material that would be considered inadmissible in federal court

Question 35

Wolf issue

Answer 35

Were the states required to exclude illegally seized evidence from trial under the 4th and 14th Amendments?

Question 36

Wolf holding

Answer 36

The 4th Amendment now applies to the states; Wolf still loses because the courts do not provide him any remedy to exclude the evidence because USSC leaves it to states to decide

Question 37

Wolf reasoning

Answer 37

If this happened in the federal courts there would be no question that is was an illegal search

Question 38

4th Amendment

Answer 38

Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government; extends to states in Wolf

Question 39

Exclusionary Rule

Answer 39

A law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial The remedy for defendants who claim that their 4th Amendment right has been violated Extended to states in Mapp

Question 40

If something is a search...

Answer 40

The 4th Amendment may apply