Criminal Law & Procedure - Constitutional Protection of Accused Persons Flashcards
(16 cards)
What constitutional protections are enjoyed by accused persons?
- Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment; Wolf v. Colorado)
- Exclusionary rule requiring that the result of a violation of this prohibition not be used as evidence against the defendant (Fourth Amendment; Mapp v. Ohio)
- Privilege against compulsory self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment; Malloy v. Hogan) and prohibition against double jeopardy (Fifth Amendment; Benton v. Maryland)
- Right to a public trial (Sixth Amendment; In re Oliver)
- Right to trial by jury (Sixth Amendment; Duncan v. Louisiana)
- Right to confront witnesses (Sixth Amendment; Pointer v. Texas)
- Right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses (Sixth Amendment; Washington v. Texas)
- Right to assistance of counsel in felony cases (Sixth Amendment; Gideon v. Wainwright) and in misdemeanour cases in which imprisonment is imposed (Argersinger v. Hamlin)
- Prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment; Robinson v. California)
- Prohibition against excessive fines (Eighth Amendment; Timbs v. Indiana)
Was seizure of a person proper?
Fourth Amendment provides that people should be free in their persons from unreasonable searches and seizures
Was the arrest proper?
- Arrest must be based on probable cause
- Warrant not required for public arrest even if they have time to get a warrant (US v. Watson)
- Warrant required to arrest person in own home
Was the automobile stop proper?
Stopping a car is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes. Police officers may not stop a car unless they have at least reasonable suspicion to believe that a law has been violated
Exception: In certain cases where special law enforcement needs are involved, the Court allows police officers to set up roadblocks to stop cars without individualized suspicion that the driver has violated some law. To be valid, it appears that such roadblocks must (1) stop cars on the basis of some neutral, articulable standard (e.g. every car or every third car) and (2) be designed to serve purposes closely related to a particular problem pertaining to automobiles and their mobility (Delaware v. Prouse)
Was the investigatory detention proper?
Police have the authority to briefly detain a person for investigative purposes even if they lack probable cause to arrest
1. To make such a stop, police must have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of criminal activity or involvement in a completed crime
2. Reasonable suspicion determined by totality of circumstances (US v. Sokolow)
3. Where the source of suspicion of criminal activity is an informant’s tip, the tip must be accompanied by indicia of reliability, including predictive information, sufficient to make the officer’s suspicion reasonable
4. For a stop to be valid, the police must act in a diligent and reasonable manner in confirming or dispelling their suspicions (US v. Sharpe)
Was the deadly force used to apprehend a suspect properly exercised?
Officer may not use deadly force to apprehend a suspect unless it is reasonable to do so under the circumstances (Scott v. Harris)
Was there an improper search or seizure of property?
- Whether There Was Government Conduct: Fourth Amendment generally protects only against governmental conduct including the police and their agents but not against searches by private persons
- Whether Defendant Has Standing: Not enough merely that someone has an expectation of privacy in the place searched or the item seized, hence Supreme Court has imposed a standing requirement so that a person can complain about an eviden¬tiary search or seizure only if it violates his own reasonable expectations of privacy (Rakas v. Illinois)
- Whether Valid Warrant Obtained: To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, most searches by criminal law enforcement officers must be pursuant to a warrant
- Whether Exception Applies If No Warrant: Six circum¬stances where a warrantless search by law enforcement officers is reason¬able and therefore is valid under the Fourth Amendment
What are the six exceptions to searches with warrants?
- Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: Police may conduct a warrantless search incident to an arrest as long as it was made on probable cause (Virginia v. Moore)
- Automobiles: If the police have probable cause to believe that a vehicle such as an automobile contains contraband or fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of a crime, they may search the vehicle without a warrant (Carroll v. US)
- Plain View: police may make a warrantless seizure when they (i) are legitimately on the premises, (ii) discover evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of crime, or contraband, (iii) see such evidence in plain view and (iv) have probable cause to believe that the item is evidence, contraband, or a fruit or instrumentality of crime (Coolidge v. New Hampshire) → e.g. police may seize unspecified property while executing a search warrant
- Consent: Police may conduct a valid warrantless search if they have a voluntary consent to do so
- Stop and Frisk: During a Terry stop, police officer may conduct a protective frisk to (i) pat down outer clothing for weapons and (ii) seize anything that by plain feel is weapon or contraband if police have reasonable belief that detainee is armed and dangerous
- Hot Pursuit and Other Emergencies
- Inventory Searches: Police may (i) search an arrestee’s personal belongings in order to inventory them before incarcerating the arrestee and (ii) police may search an entire vehicle that has been impounded, as long as the search is part of an established department routine
- Public School Searches: Warrant or probable cause is not required for searches conducted by public school officials as only reasonable grounds for the search are necessary
- Mandatory Drug Testing: Mandatory drug testing has been upheld when it serves a special need beyond the needs of law enforcement
- Boarder Searches: Warrantless searches at the border is broadly upheld to protect national sovereignty
Was the confession involuntary and due process violated?
For confessions to be admissible, the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment requires that they be voluntary. Voluntariness is assessed by looking at the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect’s age, education, and mental and physical condition, along with the setting, duration, and manner of police interrogation
Government compulsion makes confession involuntary
Conviction will not necessarily be overturned if an involuntary confession was erroneously admitted into evidence as the harmless error test applies, and the conviction will not be overturned if the government can show that there was other overwhelming evidence of guilt
Was Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated?
Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right to the assistance of counsel
Applicability: Sixth Amendment applies at all critical stages of a criminal prosecution after formal proceedings have begun. Sixth Amendment right has been limited to cases where adversary judicial proceedings have begun where formal charges have been filed and does not apply in pre-charge custodial interrogations
Waiver: Right is violated when the police deliberately elicit an incriminating statement from a defendant without first obtaining a waiver of the defendant’s right to have counsel present → waiver must be knowing and voluntary
Remedy: If the defendant was entitled to a lawyer at trial, the failure to provide counsel results in automatic reversal of the conviction, even without any showing of specific unfairness in the proceedings
Impeachment: Statement made in violation of Sixth Amendment may not be used to prove guilt but may still be used for impeachment
Was Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination violated?
Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that a person shall not be compelled to give self-incriminating testimony
Miranda warnings + valid waiver are prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by the accused during custodial interrogation
1. Miranda Warnings: Person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that (1) he has the right to remain silent, (2) anything he says can be used against him in court, (3) he has the right to the presence of an attorney and (4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for him if he so desires
2. Waiver: After receiving Miranda warnings, a (1) detainee may waive his Miranda rights, (2) assert the right to remain silent, or (3) assert the right to consult with an attorney
3. Effect of Violation: Evidence obtained in violation of Miranda is inadmissible at trial
4. Public Safety Exception: If police interrogation is reasonably prompted by concern for public safety, responses to the questions may be used in court, even though the suspect is in custody and Miranda warnings are not given
Was Sixth Amendment apply to pre-trial identifications?
Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies at any post-charge lineup or showup
Accused does not have the Sixth Amendment right to counsel at photo identifications
Due Process Standard: Defendant can attack an identification as denying due process when the identification is unnecessarily suggestive and there is a substantial likelihood of misidentification
Remedy: Improper identifications will be excluded from trial but if out-of-court identification excluded, in-court identifications allowed if from a source independent of the excluded identification
What is the exclusionary rule?
Evidence obtained in violation of defendant’s Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment rights generally will be excluded from the criminal trial to deter government violation of constitutional rights
What is the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine?
Not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence must be excluded → courts deem such evidence the tainted fruit of the poisonous tree
Subject to limitations and exceptions, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine provides that no exclusion if the deterrent effect on police misconduct is outweighed by the costs of excluding probative evidence
What is the purpose of Gerstein Hearings?
Preliminary hearing is a hearing held after arrest but before trial to determine whether probable cause for detention exists. Hearing must be held within a reasonable time, and the Court has determined that 48 hours is presumptively reasonable
If probable cause has already been determined (e.g. the arrest is pursuant to a grand jury indictment or an arrest warrant), a preliminary hearing need not be held
