Legal issues in criminal investigations Flashcards
(37 cards)
Probable cause
minimum amount of information necessary to warrant a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed by a person who is about to be arrested
Exclusionary rule
all evidence illegally obtained will be excluded even if relevant and material
Weeks VS US 1914
exclusionary rule applicable to federal governments
Silverthrorne Lumbar VS US 1920
Fruit of the poisonous tree
A doctrine that extends the exclusionary rule to make evidence inadmissible in court if it was derived from evidence that was illegally obtained. As the metaphor suggests, if the evidential “tree” is tainted, so is its “fruit.”
Mapp vs Ohio 1961
exclusionary rule applying to both federal and state
Chimel vs California 1969
“Not in plain view”
Search incidental to arrest must be confined to the area around the suspects immediate control “scope of the search”
US vs Leon 1984
Exclusionary rule was designed to keep police from abusing their authority. The ruling stated that evidence obtained through a search warrant was admissible even it the judge signing the warrant was found to not have probable cause for the search
T/F: a search warrant is one of the most valuable tools in a criminal investigation
TRUE
Search warrant must contain:
Specifics about location searched, items sought and must be signed by a judge
In texas : “ The State of Texas”
Anticipatory warrants
Future crime, can not be executed until certain “ triggering events” have occurred first
4th Amendement
all searched must be preceded by the officer obtaining a search warrant.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause
Exceptions to the 4th Amendement
consents, exigent circumstance, incident to arrest, stop and frisk, plain view, vehicle, open field
Consensual search
needs to be subsequent to a lawful detention, and be authorized voluntarily without coercion from officers, and consent must be given by a person with the legal authority to do so
Exigent cricumstances
In the time it would take to gather the warrant, too much time will pass and can jeopardize the public safety or lead to the loss of important evidence
Terry VS Ohio 1968
An officer may stop a person that the officer reasonably suspects has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, has reasonable suspicions based on articulable facts, permits the officer to search for weapons for officer safety
also known as “ Terry frisk” or “ Detentions”
Consensual encounter
when a person understands they are able to leave at anytime during the investigation/ conversation with an officer - if they feel they are not free to leave it is no longer consensual.
officer only needs legal right to be in the place
Illinois VS Wardlow 2000
when a suspect flees, it constitutes an additional factor for determining responsible suspicion
Harris VS US 1968
&
Coolidge VS New york 1971
Also referred to as “ PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE”
objects falling in plain view of an officer who has the legal right to be present are subject to seizure and may be used as evidence.
Coolidge VS NY:
objects must be found where the officer legally was allowed to be present, must be found inadvertently and contraband or useful as evidence of the crime
US VS Irizarry 1987
officers can not move objects in plain view to get a better view of items that would otherwise be hidden
Carrol VS US 1925
” Carrol doctrine” permits officers to search a vehicle that is moving or about to be moved if PC exists that evidence is inside the vehicle
California VS Acevedo 1991
If officer has PC that a container in the vehicle contains evidence that officer may seize and open container
Chambers VS Maroney 1970
vehicle inventory: objects located during inventory can be seized as evidence
Oliver VS US 1984
open fields hold no expectation of privacy and are not protected by the 4th amendment
Curtilage
area surrounding ones house
