hi Flashcards
yay (45 cards)
ceccolini
When wong sun was decided it made no distinction between physical/tangible evidence and verbal evidence was evaluating the dissipation of the taint exception
Ceccolini decides that issue
They find the name of a witness, and they testify against ceccolini, he tries to get the evidence suppressed because it was illegally obtained
Ceccollini loses, court says there is a distinction between verbal and physical evidence when looking at DOT. they say that there is less reason to break the law to find witness, so the taint with verbal evidence dissipates quicker than physical evidence
The cost of inadmissible witness testimony means that there must be a close tie between illegality and the testimony.
brown v IL 4 factors for determining dissipation of the taint
Time elapsed between the illegality and the seizure of the fruit
Longer time from seizure of fruit from illegality is more likely dissipated
If conduct was good or bad faith/flagrant violations
Bad faith takes longer to dissipate than good faith
Existence or absence of intervening causes of the seizure of the fruit
In wong sun, did something happen in between the fruit being seized?
Presence or act of free will by the defendant
Herring v. US facts
Frequent flier, law enforcement knew about him
Going to pick up his impounded truck
The police see him and see benny trying to get truck
Run warrant in their county, and there are none, he then looks for another county, and there is 1
There is a warrant, they ask for it to be faxed over
They go and arrest him and find gun and meth in the car
They find out the warrant was not valid and had been recalled 5 months earlier, and no one updated the computer
The police actually have a warrant (tho it might be invalid)
Herring v us Issue
If an officer reasonably believes there is an outstanding arrest warrant but it is not because of negligent book keeping error is it a violation of 4th amendment and is the evidence excluded.
herring holding
He loses, gun and meth can be used against him
herring reasoning
They agree that his 4th amendment rights were violated, but the USSC said suppression isn’t a direct consequence of a 4th amendment right violation
Er doesn’t always apply, turns on culpability of the police and the potential if we exclude the evidence to deter the behavior
Look at conduct, officer behavior, and exclude evidence if it will deter that same behavior
Address flagrancy of misconduct
Error didn’t rise to the level of misconduct, so it would not be excluded
Court asks does that mean that all booking errors are free from ER?
No, this one was though, but if one was grossly intentional, you might have the remedy of the exclusionary rule
hudson v michigan facts
Police went to the house with a warrant, they announced but didn’t knock, after 3-5 seconds they enter the home, and they find drugs and guns inside the home
hudson issue
Hudson says you admit you didn’t knock, and that violates my fourth amendment
hudson holding
hudson loses
hudson reasoning
When knock and announce rules is violated suppression is not the answer, ER is not the remedy
Resorting massive remedy of excluding everything which is too great
We have a specific reasons for knock and announce
Privacy
Property
Protection of human life
They were going in anyways because they had a valid search warrant
Aguilar v. TX (1964) facts
The police have a warrant, officers draft affidavit, which is where you would find probable cause. They said they received reliable information from a credible person, they get warrant, and find drugs
aguilar issue
Did they have probable cause to execute the search warrant
aguilar holding
Aguilar wins/they didn’t
aguilar reasoning
The warrant and affidavit were insufficient, and didn’t provide a basis for providing probable cause
As a result, evidence is excluded
We don’t know who the statement is by, or how true it could be
No detail on how officer got the information, did he speak to person?
Didn’t rise to level of probable cause
Not a bright line rule
Does officer need to identify informant by name?
No, they are confidential
The court makes a 2 part test NEED BOTH PARTS if both are met, then you have probable cause
what are the two parts of aguilar test
Part 1:
Basis of knowledge
Some underlying facts and circumstances showing how the informant knows the information
Part 2:
Credibility, veracity, and reliability
Has the informant been used before? Has their information been correct? Their batting average
With both parts, you have probable cause
Draper v. US (1959) facts
Marsh was a cop with years of experience
CI has worked for marsh for 6 months, and info he provided in the past has been accurate
CI goes to agent and says draper is going out on the train, and is going to get heroin, and then he is coming back on another specific train
He gives a physical description, height, weight, race, age, clothing, walks funny, brown bag, tattoo on the back of his neck, gives them a lot of specific information
He watches trains, and he sees someone fitting exact description, coming from a train, walking weird, search bag and find syringe in there.
Draper before aguilar
draper issue
Argues you cannot use hearsay and there wasn’t probable cause
draper holding
Draper loses, they say they had probable cause
draper reasoning
They had very specific description of him
Cop would literally have not been doing his job if he arrest him
Both parts are checked. We have them both, so there is probable cause
Spinelli v. US (1969) facts
They accuse him of gambling, taking bets and peoples money based on those bets
The four things are
Surveillance of spinelli
5 days, crosses state lines, but don’t observe anything else. Parks car, enters apartment, nothing else is observed.
Went into Apt. with two phones registered to woman
Not illegal tho
Reputation of a bookmaker
People knew him as associate of bookies, but we don’t know how they know this, when, who, how
Received reliable information from a CI that Spinelli is a bookmaker
Arrested, charged, convicted
Challenges affidavit
The gov says we threw it all in, 1, 2, and 3 give weight to the 4th
Court says we will be the ones to decide that
Court says that approach is a totality of circumstances approach
Everything being treated evenly, and that isn’t the standard, the standard is aguilar, basis of knowledge, reliability, need to use aguilar test
spinelli issue
Whether the information corroborated the CI alleged information. Did the 3 other things self verify to then give credit to what the informant allegedly said.
spinelli holding
spinelli wins
spinelli reasoning
Court says your surveillance means nothing
Court takes idea that if information is specific, then it adds a self verifying detail
Spinelli, aguilar work together now
Look for the two things in aguilar, if there is something missing from one of the prongs, then look to spinelli, is it so specific that it is self verifying, is it soooo specific and self verifying
In this case specifically it was not
Aguilar test becomes aguilar, spinelli test, look first to aguilar and then to spinelli if aguilar isn’t good enough
If it verifies then there is probable cause, if not then there is not probable cause
IL v. Gates facts
Il receives letter that husband and wife are drug trafficking into gates
The wife would fly to florida, and then the husband would drive, then they would switch
Police first run them through system to registry
Contact drug people in florida
Dea sees a car registered to the couple, anonymous letter from person
Anonymous letter tells this is how you keep your eye, gives specific date, may 3, they brag they never have to work, how they do it
Anonymous so we don’t know how they got this information
They run the information contact FL dea
Dea surveillance
They both get in car and head back to IL after flying down
Officer takes police work and letter to get affidavit to search car
Police are waiting and they find 350 pounds of marajuana in their vehicle
