Chapter 6 power point
- 2. Criminal Procedure and Purpose Sets forth appropriate behavior for agents of state if they deprive individual of their liberty Derived from due process clause of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments Tremendously important legal concept Procedural law is pendulum between due process and crime control models Procedural law attempts to balance goals of these two models
- 3. Sources of Criminal Procedure Law U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights Particularly Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments Fourteenth Amendment State Constitution Federal and state statutes Supreme Court decisions
- 4. Search and Seizure Law: The Warrant and Reasonableness Clauses Governed by in large part by Fourth Amendment Two main clauses: Warrant clause All warrant must be based on probable cause Must describe person, place, or thing with particularity Reasonableness clause Allows searches without warrants Probable cause and exigent circumstances must exist
- 5. Search and Seizure Law: Probable Cause Brinegar v. United States (1949) Defined probable cause Illinois v. Gates (1983) Probable cause is fluid concept Does not require absolute certainty or even great likelihood Similar to preponderance of evidence standard in civil trials
- 6. Search and Seizure Law: Arrest Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures Seizure Exercise of dominion or control by police over a person or an item Is a broader term than arrest Detention Occurs when reasonable person viewing particular police conduct as whole and within setting would conclude police had restrained their liberty so that they are not free to leave
- 7. Search and Seizure Law: When an Officer May Arrest With a warrant If officer has probable cause If misdemeanors or felonies occur in presence of an officer or outside of a private dwelling Police may not make warrantless arrests in private dwelling unless there are exigent circumstances or they have consent to enter
- 8. Search and Seizure Law: Manner of Arrest May use whatever force is reasonable under circumstances Deadly force permitted only when necessary to protect life Knock and announce Must announce presence and purpose Give occupant reasonable time to open door Rule may be ignored in certain circumstances
- 9. Search and Seizure Law: Types of Seizures May ask questions of anyone in public—not an arrest or seizure Citizens may ignore or walk away—does not constitute probable cause “Seizure tantamount of arrest” Requires more than mere suspicion, but not probable cause Traffic stops Stop and frisks on street
- 10. Search and Seizure Law: Stop and Frisk Terry v. Ohio (1968) Requires reasonable suspicion based on experience Less demanding than probable cause Stop Must be temporary and no longer than necessary under circumstances Frisk If stop does not allay officer fears Pat-down of outer clothing Officer may not manipulate items felt to discern what they are
- 11. Search and Seizure Law: Vehicle Stops Seizure occurs whenever a vehicle is stopped Must have at least reasonable suspicion Except certain roadblocks May ask driver and passengers to exit May request documentation such as VIN and ask other questions May seek consent searches
- 12. Search and Seizure Law: Searches Defined Katz v. United States (1967) Court created reasonable expectation of privacy Fourth Amendment applies only to such places Reasonable expectation of privacy Subject of search must have a subjective expectation of privacy Society must view that expectation as reasonable
- 13. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. California (1969) Only applies if arrest is made “Lunge area” Consent Must be both voluntary and intelligent Must be limited to both time and area Requires proper authority to consent Co-occupants present Co-occupants not present
- 14. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Vehicles Carroll v. United States (1925) Lessened expectation of privacy when in public To search without warrant: Must demonstrate probable cause exists Must establish vehicle is mobile Search incident to arrest after arrestee is secured not permitted unless search is for evidence relating to arrest
- 15. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Vehicles Inventory searches limited to protection of property of arrestee Warrantless is okay so long as they are routine and not done as pretext Surveillance and monitoring of vehicles permitted on open road Not permitted when vehicle is in private dwelling Installation of tracking devices on vehicle in public area not permissible without search warrant Installation constitutes a trespass
- 16. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Plain View Harris v. United States (1968) Objects subject to seizure if they are in plain view of officer who has legal right to be in position to see them Not actually an exception Instance in which it does not apply Court has retreated from requirement that observations must be “inadvertent” Item must be immediately apparent as contraband Police may use tools to aid in their observation
- 17. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Open Fields Defined Misleading term Curtilage Do not fall under protection of Fourth Amendment May be achieved while trespassing Aerial surveillance permitted
- 18. Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement Abandoned property Not protected under Fourth Amendment Depends on where property is abandoned and on intent of disposer Special needs of law enforcement Also know as administrative searches Applied in cases that are mixture of criminal investigation and conduct by other public agencies Probationers/parolees
- 19. Criminal Procedure NoYes No Yes NoYes Reasonable expectation of Privacy in place searched? Stop p Fourth Amendment right exists Search Warrant Government Conduct Warrant valid? Were any exceptions met? Search is legal Search is illegal Yes No
- 20. Right to the Assistance of Counsel Specifically enumerated in Constitution Originally interpreted as those who wanted and could afford counsel, could not be denied Powell v. Alabama (1932) Due process requires appointment of attorney at government’s expense for indigent defendants facing capital charges Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) Made right applicable to all federal felony cases
- 21. Right to the Assistance of Counsel Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Applied previous cases to states Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) Extending right to any indigent defendant facing incarceration for felony or misdemeanor Possible sentence of more than six months
- 22. Right to Counsel During Interrogations and Pretrial Identification Procedures Fifth Amendment provides protections against self- incrimination Can be permitted if it is voluntary Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Suspect must be informed of rights before custodial interrogation Court set forth what police should say Miranda warnings
- 23. Miranda Rights Right to remain silent Anything defendant says can be used against him or her in court Right to have attorney present during questioning If they cannot afford one, one will be appointed for them prior to any questioning
- 24. When Miranda Applies Custody When suspect has been subject to formal arrest or equivalent restraints on freedom of movement Free to leave test Interrogation Police ask questions the answers to which may incriminate In circumstances in which police, through actions, create “functional equivalent” of interrogation Engage in activity they “should have known is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from suspect”
- 25. When Miranda is NOT Required Routine traffic stops Sobriety check points Conversations between two officers in vicinity of suspect Voluntary statements without prompting Routine questioning of persons at crime scene Clarifying questions Questions that are part of stop and frisk Threat to public safety
- 26. Extensions and Application of Miranda After Fifth Amendment evoked: Police cannot question more unless suspect initiates communication Suspect cannot be questioned about other crimes unrelated to current offense Police need not let suspect know lawyer is waiting if acquired by family member Police posing as inmate
- 27. Extensions and Application of Miranda Requesting lawyer at bail hearing not considered invocation of right to counsel Charges have not been filed yet If police obtain voluntary, but unwarned confession, they can remedy any confusion if they give proper Miranda warnings and obtain waiver of rights and then re-obtain confession Suspect does not need to know initial confession was inadmissible
- 28. Extensions and Application of Miranda Illegally obtained confession may be admitted at trial to impeach defendant’s testimony Must sole be used to impeach testimony Miranda rights may be waived Knowingly Intelligently Voluntarily
- 29. Pretrial Identification Procedures Suspect has right to counsel at lineup if it occurs after criminal charges have been filed Constitutes critical stage in prosecution Potential for prejudicial error No right if lineup takes place prior to charges being filed
- 30. The Confrontation of Witnesses Clause Affords defense opportunity to test credibility of hostile witnesses Prevents ex parte evidence Pointer v. Texas (1965) Made confrontation clause obligatory to states Crawford v. Washington (2004) Statements of absent witnesses may be admitted only when witness is unavailable or if defense had prior opportunity to cross-examine Unavailable-Witness demonstrably unable to testify in person Does not guarantee right to face-to-face confrontation
- 31. The Right to Compulsory Process Clause Defendants have right to compel favorable witnesses to appear in court to testify on their behalf Must show proposed witnesses’ testimony and/or evidence is relevant and that such testimony would not be cumulative Washington v. Texas (1967) Made compulsory process applicable to states Co-defendant’s testimony not sufficient for use by defense Only prosecution
- 32. The Exclusionary Rule Any evidence obtained by government in violation of Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in criminal trial for purposes of proving guilt Judicially created remedy for violations
- 33. Advancing Toward the Exclusionary Rule Boyd v. United States (1886) Adams v. New York (1904) Weeks v. United States (1914) Birth of exclusionary rule Only applied to federal government Led to issue of silver platter doctrine Nardone v. United States (1939)
- 34. Advancing Toward the Exclusionary Rule Wolf v. Colorado (1949) Applied exclusionary rule to states Left enforcement up to states Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Fully applied exclusionary rule to states State failed to provide adequate remedies for violations committed by state police
- 35. Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule Court has held rule does not in civil and grand jury investigation Number of lower courts have concluded rule does not apply to probation and parole revocation hearings Illegally obtained evidence can be used in criminal trial for purposes of impeaching defendant’s testimony
- 36. Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule Rakas v. Illinois (1978) To claim Fourth Amendment protection, defendant must have standing Person has right to bring legal action by virtue of being personally harmed Independent source exception Evidence may be admitted if knowledge of that evidence is gained from source entirely independent from source tainted by illegality
- 37. Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule Attenuation exception Illegally obtained evidence admissible if there is less than clear causal connection between illegal police action and evidence United States v. Leon (1984) Good faith exception Nix v. Williams (1984) Inevitable discovery exception