Levenson CrimPro Flashcards
(100 cards)
1
Q
Katz v. United States
A
REP
2
Q
U.S. v. Jones
A
Trespass theory
3
Q
Carpenter v. United States
A
No historical GPS cell phone data without a warrant
4
Q
U.S. v. Dunn
A
Curtilage factors (proximity to home, within same enclosure as home, privacy steps taken, nature of use)
5
Q
Florida v. Riley
A
Helicopter peeking is not a search
6
Q
Kyllo v. United States
A
Thermal imager (advanced tech) a search. Factors: look at home? tech within general use? Reveal intimate affairs?
7
Q
United States v. Knotts
A
Beepers not a search so long as there’s no trespass. If they reveal information that could have been gotten via just watching/videotaping/etc., not a search (in public)
8
Q
Smith v. Maryland
A
Pen registers not a search (third party doctrine)
9
Q
Florida v. Jardines
A
Dog sniffs that trespass onto home/curtilage a search
10
Q
Illinois v. Caballes
A
Dog sniffs during a car stop not a search (so long as search not extended for sniff)
11
Q
Illinois v. Gates
A
Overturned Aguilar/Spinelli, probable cause is determined by totality of the circumstances
12
Q
Aguilar/Spinelli
A
If cops use informant, must show that informant is reliable and determine the veracity of the information given
13
Q
Maryland v. Pringle
A
Probable cause for drugs in car can mean cops have probable cause to search all in the car (so long as they seem like they might be drug users)
14
Q
Whren v. United States
A
Don’t look at subjective intent of cops. Standard is objective
15
Q
Andresen v. Maryland
A
Typically, catch-all wording in warrants is bad. However, if limited by context of the warrant, can be ok
16
Q
Groh v. Ramirez
A
Must refer to the items to be seized in the warrant. Can do so by referencing the affidavit
17
Q
Muehler v. Mena
A
Can detain, handcuff, and question occupants during a search
18
Q
Wilson v. Layne
A
Media may not search with cops unless fulfilling a law enforcement purpose
19
Q
United States v. Bailey
A
Can’t detain if someone isn’t in immediate proximity of search area
20
Q
Warden v. Hayden
A
Hot pursuit (can search for person and evidence)
21
Q
Payton v. N.Y.
A
No exception to warrant requirement to enter an apartment/home to make a homicide arrest (not hot pursuit or an exigency)
22
Q
Collins v. Virginia
A
Automobile exception doesn’t apply on curtilage or in home
23
Q
Missouri v. McNeely
A
No per se exception for DUI blood tests. Case-by-case analysis where you ask whether they could get a warrant before BAC dissipates
24
Q
Maryland v. King
A
No suspicion required for post-arrest DNA swabs
25
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart
Preventing injury to someone satisfies the exigency exception
26
Kentucky v. King
Preventing destruction of evidence satisfies exigency exception AND it's ok for cops to create exigency so long as they've acted within the bounds of 4A up to that point
27
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Establishes plain touch doctrine, but plain touch does not equal manipulating object
28
Chimel v. California
Grab area rule for searches incident to arrest
29
Riley v. California
Cannot search phones incident to arrest unless there's truly an exigency or you get a warrant
30
Arizona v. Gant
Car searches incident to arrest: if suspect in back of patrol car, may not search passenger compartment of car unless there's reason to believe evidence of the crime of arrest is present
31
Maryland v. Buie
Establishes protective sweep "exception"
32
Georgia v. Randolph
Spouse cannot give permission to search a house when other spouse is physically present and forbidding permission
33
Fernandez v. California
Spouse can give permission to search house even when the reason the other spouse is absent is because the police have taken him away
34
Camara v. Municipal Court
Establishes administrative search procedures. No P/C required so long as reasonable legislative scheme + administrative warrant
35
New York v. Burger
Closely regulated businesses do not need admin warrant. Need (1) substantial government interest, (2) show that search fulfills that interest, and (3) legislative scheme that provides notice and limits discretion
36
City of Los Angeles v. Patel
Motels are not a closely regulated business, cops can still search with admin warrant
37
United States v. Flores-Montano
Routine secondary searches at border require no suspicion. Factors for "routine": non-invasive, non-destructive, put car back together, 2-3 hours
38
United States v. Montoya-Hernandez
Nonroutine border searches (like looking up alimentary canal) require reasonable suspicion
39
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
DUI checkpoints (suspicionless stops to check for drunkenness) ok
40
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
Drug interdiction checkpoints not ok, this is law enforcement investigation
41
New Jersey v. TLO
Individual student searches require only reasonable suspicion
42
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding
If individual student search particularly invasive, there must be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of dangerous item
43
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
Random drug testing of school football team ok
44
Board of Education v. Earls
Random drug tests of all extracurricular activities ok
45
Ferguson v. City of Charleston
Drug testing pregnant women and sending info to law enforcement not ok (primary purpose is law enforcement, not health and safety)
46
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
If someone is entering GenPop, no suspicion needed to strip/cavity search. Court leaves open possibility of suspicion required for non-GenPop
47
United States v. Knights
Probation searches require reasonable suspicion only
48
Samson v. California
Parolee searches require no suspicion
49
United States v. Mendenhall
Test to determine if someone is seized is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. If not, consensual encounter
50
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
Can arrest for any crime, not just arrestable crimes
51
Virginia v. Moore
Can arrest for crimes that state law deems non-arrestable, so long as there's probable cause
52
Terry v. Ohio
Establishes reasonable suspicion for temporary investigative detentions. R/S = particularized facts that lead to reasonable inferences of crime
53
Navarette v. California
Anonymous 911 call saying that dangerous driver on road that identified type of car and license plate and direction was sufficient for R/S
54
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District
Can ask for ID on Terry Stops + giving ID not self-incrimination for 5A purposes
55
United States v. Arvizu
Establishes totality of the circumstances factors for Terry car stops
56
Florida v. J.L.
Not enough for R/S when anonymous tipster merely described what someone looked like and where they were
57
Illinois v. Wardlow
Running from cops can contribute to R/S
58
Hudson v. Michigan
No exclusionary rule for knock and announce violations
59
Weeks v. United States
Establishes exclusionary rule for federal jurisdiction
60
Mapp v. Ohio
Incorporates exclusionary rule against the states
61
Herring v. United States
Exclusionary rule will only be used for intentional, reckless, or systemic 4A violations
62
Heien v. North Carolina
Reasonable mistakes of law not 4A violations
63
Utah v. Strieff
Outstanding warrant attenuates taint of illegal search/seizure
64
Rakas v. Illinois
Establishes standing doctrine for exclusionary rule. Cannot assert exclusionary rule if your rights (i.e. your REP) weren't violated
65
Byrd v. United States
Driver of rental car who is not on the rental agreement has REP in the car
66
Minnesota v. Carter
A temporary guest using a house for commercial purposes has no REP in that house
67
Brendlin v. California
All passengers are seized when a car is pulled over and may challenge the seizure
68
Murray v. U.S.
Independent source
69
Nix v. Williams
Inevitable discovery
70
U.S. v. Leon
Good faith exception. If cops get signed warrant that ultimately did not have probable cause, will not be excluded
71
Miranda v. Arizona
Lol
72
Dickerson v. United States
Worst case ever. Miranda is a "constitutional rule" (but not a part of the Constitution............) So Congress could not legislatively overturn it
73
J.D.B. v. North Carolina
Age can be used to determine whether someone is in custody (only subjective factor)
74
Howes v. Fields
Interviewing a suspect who is in jail is not per se a custodial interrogation, particularly if you tell him he is free to return to GenPop
75
Rhode Island v. Innis
Interrogation can either be direct questioning or actions that a reasonable officer should know would elicit an incriminating response from suspect
76
Oregon v. Elstad
Initial unMirandized confession does not make later Mirandized confession inadmissible (unless Seibert situation)
77
Missouri v. Seibert
Two-stage interrogations make the second, Mirandized confession inadmissible if the second confession is (1) part of same continuous interrogation or (2) a deliberate skirting of Miranda and was not accompanied by curative measures
78
U.S. v. Patane
Physical evidence obtained by a Miranda violation will not be suppressed
79
North Carolina v. Butler
Suspect can implicitly waive his Miranda rights by talking (even though suspect refuses to sign a waiver)
80
Berghuis v. Thompkins
Suspect must invoke right to remain silent either by (1) remaining silent through whole interrogation or (2) expressly invoking it by speaking. Suspect can waive right to silence by confessing, even after a long period of silence
81
Michigan v. Mosley
Once suspect invokes right to remain silent, cops can reinitiate an interrogation so long as initial invocation was "scrupulously honored." Factors include: different officers, different location, time lapse, different crime being asked about
82
Edwards v. Arizona
Once suspect has invoked right to counsel, police may never reinitiate. Suspect must reinitiate (pending Shatzer)
83
Maryland v. Shatzer
Once suspect has invoked right to counsel, police may reinitiate interrogation if suspect has been released from custody and fourteen days have passed
84
Davis v. United States
Suspect must expressly, unequivocally invoke right to counsel
85
Harris v. N.Y.
Statements made in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment
86
N.Y. v. Quarles
Public safety exception for Miranda
87
Massiah v. U.S.
Once right to counsel (6A) attaches, government may not deliberately elicit incriminating information without counsel present
88
Montejo v. Louisiana
If counsel has been assigned, but right to counsel has not been expressly invoked, police may approach suspect and ask them to waive Miranda. If they do, that functions as a 6A waiver too
89
Texas v. Cobb
6A is offense specific
90
Blockburger v. U.S.
Determining if something is the "same offense" for 6A purposes = do they have the same elements? If so, same offense. If even one element different, different offenses
91
Kastigar v. United States
Government may compel testimony by granting suspects use immunity; use immunity sufficient to cover entire 5A right against self-incrimination
92
Wade/Gilbert Rule
Right to counsel at all in-person IDs after formal charges have been filed. Evidence from an illegal lineup may not be introduced at trial. Victim may make an in-court ID so long as government shows by clear and convincing evidence that ID is not tainted by the bad lineup
93
Kirby v. Illinois
No right to counsel for in person IDs done before formal charges filed
94
United States v. Ash
No right to counsel for photographic IDs
95
Manson v. Brathwaite
Even if an ID is unnecessarily suggestive, can still be used if otherwise reliable. Factors for reliability include (1) opportunity for witness to view suspect, (2) detail of description, (3) certainty of witness, (4) time lapse between event and identification, and (5) totality of circumstances
96
Perry v. New Hampshire
Overly suggestive IDs will only be suppressed if done by the police
97
Gideon v. Wainwright
Establishes right to counsel
98
Strickland v. Washington
Establishes test for ineffective assistance of counsel. (1) Below professional level of assistance (must show specific examples), (2) Prejudicial to defense
99
McCoy v. Louisiana
If counsel concedes D's guilt in a capital case over D's protests, no prejudicial showing required. Per se structural error
100
Faretta v. California
Right to self-representation. Court most have a colloquy with D and explain the consequences of his actions and establish competence
