Quiz 3 Content (Test 1) Flashcards
(31 cards)
1
Q
due process
A
- an individual can’t be harmed (lose life, liberty, property) by the gov unless the rules of the justice system have been followed
- as society, we expect gov to not harm us, to treat us equally & protect our rights
- 5th & 14thA: the gov shall not deprive anyone of LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY without due process of law (4, 6, 8A also involved)
2
Q
4th Amendment
A
- Gov can’t invade our personal lives without probable cause
- Gov should leave people alone unless it can prove they’ve done something went wrong (probable cause)
- Protection under 4thA requires a warrant be secured by law enforcement officer once they can prove probable cause that a crime has/about to be committed
3
Q
probable cause
A
- somebody under oath said someone has/about to do something
- ore than just a hunch
4
Q
warrant
A
- permission from a judge (court order)
- has to be specific, answers:
1) exact identity of the premises they want to enter
2) who they want to search
3) what is it that they want to seize, what are they looking for?
5
Q
Torres v Madrid
A
- police shot & injured Torres driving b/c they thought she was under influence
- police said they didn’t capture her when she sued them for excessiveness (only an “attempt”)
- physical force used to detain suspect does not need to be successful to count
- court ruled unreasonable seizure
- “attempt” to seize is still a “seizure”
6
Q
what are the exceptions to privacy under 4thA?
A
1) stop & frisk
2) things in plain view
3) roadblocks
4) places/things that the arrested person could teach/reach/is otherwise in the person’s “immediate control”
5) to prevent destruction of evidence
6) when needed for airport security
7) ensuring work-related drug tests
8) when needed for public school students & prisoners
9) when police act in good even though a warrant is faulty
10) entering property when there is a strong suspicion that a person could b in immediate danger
7
Q
Ohio v Terry
A
- stop & frisk
- “Terry Stop” is when you are stopped & pat down/searched (if police can show they were fearful he might have weapons)
- Terry had concealed weapons on street, police pat down
- court in favor of police, found that the search was legal b/c reasonable to believe that Terry was armed & presented a threat
- benefit of the doubt to police
- temporary, investigatory stops are allowed, need reasonable suspicion
8
Q
California v Ciraolo
A
- plain view
- Ciraolo was growing pot in backyard, someone sent in anon tip (NOT enough info alone)
- police couldn’t see past his gate so they flew over his yard and saw it, got a warrant
- he was arrested for possession, but claimed that seeing from a plane wasn’t “plain view”
- court said it was NONINTRUSIVE & took place within the public navigable airspace
9
Q
Kyllo v US
A
- plain view
- grew pot in greenhouse, police got anon tip
- police got thermos imaging screen to see the plants, got a warrant
- he argued they went too far, wasn’t in “plain view”
- court said “when the gov uses a device that is not in general public to explore details of the home that previously would have been unknowable without using physical intrusion, the surveillance amounts to search & is unreasonable without a warrant”
- court agreed police went too far
10
Q
exigent circumstances
A
emergency, police in hot pursuit of a suspect, exception to 4thA
11
Q
Lange v California
A
- exigent circumstance/hot pursuit
- Lange driving on highway, police said he was playing music too loud & honking randomly, police followed him home, smelled alc on him, arrested him
- Lange argued he had no right to enter his home
- police said it was exigent
- pursuit of a fleeing MISDEMEANOR suspect does not always justify a warrantless entry into a home
- court said police went too far, exigent circumstance must be based on felonious activity
12
Q
US v Martinez-Fuerte
A
- roadblock exception to 4thA
- intercepting illegal aliens
- court found it was CONSTITUTIONAL, allowed border patrol to set up permanent/fixed checkpoints on public highways leading/to/away from Mexican border
13
Q
Delaware v Prouse
A
- roadblock exception to 4thA
- to verify drivers’ licenses & registrations to serve a highway safety interest
- the law is different when it comes to in your car vs anywhere else, court says driving on public highway is a privilege & there are rules
- found UNCONSTITUTIONAL because stop was NOT random
14
Q
Michigan Dept of State Police v Sitz
A
- roadblock exception to 4thA
- sobriety checkpoint aimed at getting drunks off road is CONSTITUTIONAL as long as they’re not random (must be based off a specific program/pattern)
- found as a minimal & temporary intrusion of privacy is quick & weighted against need to stop drunk driving
15
Q
City of Indianapolis v Edmond
A
- roadblock exception to 4thA
- checkpoint for illegal drugs
- one cop questioned you while the other walked around car with a dog
- court said they went too far
- checking illegal drugs as roadblock is UNCONSTITUTIONAL b/c the primary purpose is indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control
- “might” be committing crime is too far… just b/c drugs are a severe problem, doesn’t justify roadblock
- roadblocks aren’t to phish for drugs, just to prevent drunk driving
16
Q
Riley v California
A
- cell phones & the 4thA
- gang shooting, fled from scene, no arrest, 1 month later they see him driving w/ expired license, pulled him over w/; arrest warrant, took inventory of car, found drugs, took his phone & went through it, saw pics of gang evidence
- Riley said they weren’t allowed to look at his phone because that’s not what the warrant was for
- court agreed that the police went too far w/ his phone
- no reason to go through it, unless it’s to preserve evidence that may be destroyed
17
Q
Carpenter v US
A
- cell phones & the 4thA
- court said can’t use all info on your cell regarding location, need a warrant w/ probable cause
- warrantless collection of cell site locator info
- does the warrantless search & seizure of cell phone records, which include the location & movements of cellphone users violate 4thA?
- YES, NEED A WARRANT
18
Q
exclusionary rule
A
- prevents evidence collected/analyzed in violation of Δ’s constitutional rights from being used in a court of law
- not a constitutional right, only to stop police from using illegal methods
19
Q
Weeks v US
A
- created an exclusionary rule
- prohibits courts from considering evidence illegally obtained
- Weeks applied to FED court
20
Q
Mapp v Ohio
A
exclusionary rule is now applied to STATES, too
21
Q
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
22
Q
Wong Sun v US
A
- fruit of poisonous tree
- excludes the presentation of verbal evidence & recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry
- any evidence connected to illegal evidence is thrown out, too
- court said the statement that the witness made was thrown out, so evidence was illegal under poisonous tree
- EXPANDED EXCLUSIONARY RULE
23
Q
US v Leon
A
- fruit of poisonous tree
- began to NARROW scope of EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- when a warrant is invalid, can the evidence obtained w/ this warrant be excluded under the 4thA (exclusionary clause)?
- court created the “good faith” exception to exclusionary rule (applies officers conduct a search & seizure w/ objectively reasonable reliance on what turns out to be an invalid warrant)
- but it was not the police’s fault… they just relied on unreliable warrant, so EVIDENCE COULD BE USED
24
Q
Herring v US
A
- fruit of poisonous tree
- court was CHIPPING AWAY at EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- this was the 1st time dealing w/ the issue if POLICE were doing something wrong
- Herring claimed warrant was invalid
- does a court violate by introducing evidence based on a warrant that should’ve been thrown out but wasn’t? Court didn’t throw it out
- held that the evidence discovered after the warrant for arrest was not a deliberate wrongdoing by officer, so not his fault, EVIDENCE CAN BE USED
- created NEW TEST as to what triggers the exclusionary rule: was police sufficiently deliberate & culpable?
- case BROADENED the “good faith” exception from Leon case
25
Utah v Strieff
- fruit of poisonous tree
- court started doing a benefit-cost analysis (cost: to society when criminals are allowed to go free due to unconstitutional stop/seizure, benefit: deterrence of illegal police behavior)
- detective gets tip about drug sales, surveys area, saw Strieff leave his house so starts investigating (Terry Stop), runs his license, sees outstanding warrant against him
- court allowed it since there was a warrant
- LIMITED THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- court held that evidence obtained in violation of the 4thA protections should NOT be excluded from evidence when the COSTS OF ITS EXCLUSION OUTWEIGH ITS BENEFITS (drug justified stop)
26
5th Amendment
- guarantees that an individual cannot be compelled by the government to provide incriminating information about herself – the so-called
- right to remain silent
27
right against self incrimination
individuals have the privilege against self-incrimination, can refuse to answer questions/make potentially incriminating statements/testify at a trial in any criminal case
28
taking the 5th
- taking your right to "remain silent"
- citing that right and refuse to answer questions
29
Miranda v Arizona
- 5thA case
- Δ’s questioned by prosecutors in isolated rooms, was given no warning that they didn’t need to say anything
- their lawyer argued they weren't reminded of their 5thA right
- Δ’s who are not under arrest at the time of questioning are entitled to be warned of their 5th amend right to remain silent, right to attorney
30
Salinas v Texas
- 5thA case
- Salinas was a suspect of murder, police wanted to question him, he was answering all q's until they mentioned identifying the gun (interpreted the no response as "guilty")
- they found it was his gun, but was a mistrial (invalid through an error in the proceedings)
- in 2nd trial, prosecutor said Salinas refused to answer so he got convicted of crime
- he claimed that his refusal to answer was protected
- court said YOU CAN'T JUST REMAIN SILENT, have to STATE that you're EXERCISING YOUR 5thA right
31
Custodial interrogation
when an individual does not feel free to leave
