Criminal Procedure Textbook Outline

8/7/2019 Criminal Procedure Textbook Outline

1/24

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TEXTBOOK OUTLINE 1

I. SEARCH WARRANTSa. The particularity requirement

i. United States v. Grubbs [page 130] 1. F acts of Case

a. Grubbs said that the items that were found within his home

during the search for a child pornography case should besuppressed . b. He said this because he said he was shown an anticipatory

warrant with no triggering conditions presentc. The condition was that Grubbs had to receive a child

pornographic video in the mail2 . An anticip atory w arran t is a warrant based on an affidavit showing

probable cause that at a future time, certain evidence of crime willbe located at a specified place

a. Same as regular warrants3 . The fourth amendment does not require that the triggering

condition for an anticipatory search warrant be set forth in thewarrant itself just the place to be searched and items beingsearched for

a. Triggering conditions only have to be present in the affidavitthat the police set forth .

ii. Maryland v. Garrison [page 133] 1. F acts of the case

a. Baltimore police had a warrant to search a particularaddress . They executed the warrant believing that there wasone apartment (the one to be searched) on the floor when inreality there were two separate ones .

b. Before the police realized that there were two separateapartments, they found contraband in the apartment notlisted on the warrant . The evidence was then used toprosecute the other party .

2 . The validity of a warrant must be assessed on the basis of theinformation that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discoverand to disclose, to the issuing Magistrate .

b. Warrant Executioni. Wilson v. Arkansas [page 138]

1. F acts of the casea. I nformant purchased marijuana at the home that the

petitioner shared with Bryson Jacobs . Affidavits that werefiled to get warrants set the details of the narcotictransactions and that Jacobs had been previously convictedon other grounds .

b. When the police went in to execute warrant they announcedthemselves and stated that they had a warrant . While insidethey seized various items of contraband .


2/24

c. They argued that the search was invalid because the officershad failed to knock and announce before entering .

2 . The common law knock and announce principle forms a part of thereasonable inquiry under the F ourth Amendment

3 . I n this case, the police did not have to announce before entering

because in doing so they might have been injured since Jacobs was aknown felon and might lead to the destruction of evidence . ii. Richards v. Wisconsin [page 141]

1. F acts of the casea. Police officers in Wisconsin got a warrant to search hotel

room for drugs . Police requested a warrant that gaveauthorizations for a no-knock entry but the magistrate didnot approve .

b. Plain clothed officers knocked the door and when Richardsnoticed police he slammed the door . Officers then kicked indoor and claimed they stated they were officers upon doing

so. 2 . I n order to justify a no-knock entry the police must have areasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presencewould be dangerous or inhibit the effective investigation .

3 . There should be no blanket exception to knock-and-announcerequirement

iii. United States v. Banks [page 146] 1. F acts of the case

a. Police with a warrant knocked on suspect Banks door. Theywaited between 15 and 20 seconds before busting down door . Banks was arrested but argued that officers had not waited

long enough after knocking before busting in door . 2 . Court said that 15 to 20 seconds is a reasonable period for the policeto wait before entering by force because in the case of drug caseswaiting longer might lead to the destruction of evidence

iv. Lo s Angeles C o unty v. Rettele [page 357] 1. F acts of the case

a. Police obtained a valid warrant to search a house but did notknow that the suspects had moved out 3 months earlier . When searching they found the two residents who were of adifferent race than suspects sleeping naked in the bed . Theyrequired them to stand before allowing them to dress .

b. The residents brought a suit citing the F ourth Amendmentright to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

2 . I n executing a search warrant officers may take reasonable actionto secure the premises and to ensure their own safety and theefficacy of the search .

II. F OURTH AMENDMENT EXPECTAT I ON OF PRIV ACYa. Protected F ourth Amendment I nterests

i. K atz v. United States [page 150]


3/24


1. F acts of the casea. Government introduced evidence of his telephone

conversations overheard by FBI agents who had a recordingdevice on the outside of a telephone booth .

b. Katz says that the booth is a constitutionally protected area .

Government argued there was no penetration of the phonebooth and that by entering a clear phone booth, there was noprotection from privacy

2 . Court says that the 4 th amendment extends to recording ofstatements . There should be no exception in the surveillance of atelephone booth . Wherever a person is he should remain free fromunreasonable searches

ii. Calif o rnia v. Greenw oo d [page 163] 1. F acts of the case

a. After receiving a tip about Greenwoods drug use, policeofficer asked the trash collectors to turn over the garbage

without mixing it with garbage of other houses . After findingsigns of narcotics, police obtained a warrant to search thehouse .

2 . Court said that the garbage is available to the public and thereforeis exempt from the 4 th amendment . I t is not reasonable forGreenwood to feel that he has an expectation of privacy in trash leftfor collection in a public area .

III. TECHNOLOGYa. Advancing technology and other methods of sensory enhancement

i. United States v. K n o tts [page 168] 1. F acts of the case

a. Police were suspicious that the associate of the defendantwas involved in manufacturing drugs and placed a trackingbeeper in a container of chloroform . They used the device tofind a cabin where the drugs were being manufactured

b. They obtained a search warrant for the cabin . 2 . Court says that a person traveling in an automobile on public roads

has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from oneplace to another .

a. The fact that the officers relied not on visual surveillancebut on a beeper does not change the situation

3 . Knotts argues that since the beeper was rested on his property it

should not be allowed to be used . Court says that the police did notthe beeper once it reached his grounds . There is no search andseizure for 4 th amendment purposes .

ii. Ky ll o v. United States [page 172] 1. F acts of the case

a. F ederal agents used a thermal imager to scan a home whensearching if there were high-intensity lamps that arecommonly used to grow marijuana plants . Based on the


4/24

thermal imaging system as well as tips from informants,utility bills, the agents got a warrant to search the house andfound the indoor marijuana growing operation .

2 . Katz test examine the minimum protection of privacy that existsand that is acknowledged to be reasonable

3 .

Court finds that the thermal imager was a unconstitutional search . Government states that the imager only detects heat leaving thehouse but the court argues that a microphone does the same thingbut is prohibited [see above]

a. Thermal devices does not let the police know what quality thematerial they receive is could be personal information

IV. PROBABLE CAUSEa. Challenging Warrants

i. F ranks v. Delaware [page 125] 1. Court finds that if the defendant shows the following then there has

to a hearing at defendants request

a. The false statement was made knowingb. I s included in a warrant affidavitc. And is used in a probable cause

b. Probable Causei. Spinelli v. United States [page 183]

1. F acts of the casea. Spinelli was convicted of travelling to St Louis from a nearby

suburb with the intent of conducting gambling activities thatare illegal under Missouri law .

2 . Court said the affidavit is not proper because circumstances did notto be ones that led to a valid warrant

a. They did not have support that their inside tip was credibleb. When they submitted affidavit only one of four elementswould be supportive for warrant and that was the informant .

i. I nformant was not specified3 . Have to measure up affidavit to Aguilar standards . F irst you have to

examine the tip then look to the other points addressed . a. I n this case there was no support that the source was

reliableb. Have to detail the criminal activity so that we know that it is

not hearsay that the informant is providingii. I llin o is v. Gates [page 190]

1. F acts of the casea. Police received an anomynous handwritten letter stating that

the Gates family transports drugs to and from F lorida . Theythen used an informant to find the next trip to F lorida . After obtaining details to the trips, they obtained a searchwarrant for the Gates residence and their automobile .

b. After the Gates returned, they searched and found variouscontraband and guns .


5/24


2 . The court said that the anonymous letter sent to the policedepartment does not provide basis that there was probable cause tobelieve that there is contraband in the car and home

a. No evidence that the author is reliable or honest3 . The Supreme [previous] Court said should apply two-prong Spinelli

test a. Show that the affidavit revealed the basis of knowledge ofthe letter writer

b. Had to show that the facts showed the reliability of theinformants report

4 . When a court decides whether or not to issue a search warrant, theelements of the informants credibility/reliability and basis ofknowledge are to be used as guides when considering the totality ofthe circumstances and are not to be exclusive requirements appliedin every case .

a. So long as the magistrate had a substantial basis for

concluding a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing,the F ourth Amendment is not violated . V. PLAI N VI EW

a. Warrantless Searches and Seizuresi. H o rt o n v. Calif o rnia [page 208]

1. F acts of the casea. Police searching home for stolen goods & finds guns in plain

sight2 . Plai n view doct r i ne: if an article is in plain view, neither its

observation nor its seizure would involve any invasion of privacya. The item must be in plain view and its incriminating character

must also be immediately apparentb. He or her must have lawful access to the access to theobject itself

3 . Plain view alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure ofevidence . The discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent

4 . Seizing a plain view object is not an intrusion prohibiting of generalsearches helps as protection against intrusions

VI. WARRANTLESS ARRESTSa. Search I ncident to Legal Arrest

i. United States v. Wats o n [page 215] 1. F acts of the case

a. F ederal inspector believed that Watson had a stolen car . Court said that the arrest was unconstitutional because itwas acted without a warrant .

b. Under the F ourth Amendment it is not unreasonable forpostal inspectors to arrest without a warrant provided theyhave probable cause to do so

2 . A government official may arrest a person without a warrant uponprobable cause to believe the person is guilty of a felony


6/24

3 . Any arrest, which is executed, must be supported by either probablecause, a warrant, exigent circumstances or an Act of Congress, whichauthorizes various government officials to make warrantless arrests .

VII. SEARCHI NCI DENT TO ARREST i. Chimel v. Calif o rnia [page 221]

1.

F acts of the casea. 3 police officers arrived at Chimels house with a warrantauthorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop . Thewife let the police in . When Chimel arrived home, the policeasked him if they could look around the house and when heobjected, they advised him that they would continue to lookaround .

b. They did not have a search warrant . When searching thehouse they directed the wife to move things around andseized numerous items primarily coins . Chimel objected theywere unconstitutionally taken

2 . There should not be any search in the home other than in thearresting areaa. There should be no search beyond area where the person can

get evidence or weaponsb. I n this particular case, the search clearly went beyond area

where there is weaponi. The search was unconstitutional under the 4 th and

14 th amendmentii. Ariz o na v. Gant [page 229]

1. F acts of the casea. Anomynous tip led police to a particular house . Gant answered

the door and stated he was not owner . Officers did a checkno his license and found that it was suspended and there wasoutstanding warrant for his arrest

b. When arriving later they found a man and woman in back ofhouse for drug paraphernalia . Gant arrived later and wasarreted . After handcuffed and placed in back of patrol car,officers searched his car finding frugs and a gun .

c. Gant argued that the warrantless search violated the 4 th amendment

2 . Court found that Gant was not within the reaching distance of hiscar when it was being searched . I n addition, since Gant was being

arrested for a suspended license, there was nothing that could havebeen reasonably found in the car

3 . People guilty of traffic violations are allowed to be free fromsearches

VIII. SEARCHES OF VEHI CLESa. Automobile Exception

i. Calif o rnia v. Carne y [page 238] 1. F acts of the case


7/24


8/24

a. I nventory searches are meant to protect police from dangerand protect anything from happening to personal belongingswhile car is impounded

I X. CONSENT SEARCHESa. Consent

i.

Schneckl o th v. Bustam o nte [page 260] 1. F acts of the casea. Bustamonte was stopped and was asked to search the vehicle .

Another passenger in the car gave permission . The searchshowed stolen checks that were seized

2 . RU LE OF LAW: To d et ermi ne wh eth er a s ear ch was volu nt ar ydoes not req ui re th at th e p ers on k new about hi s r ight s but wh eth er th e tot ality of th e ci rcu mst ances i ndicat ed th at th e

p ers on was volu nt ar i ly allowi ng th e sear ch a. I f the subject knows he or she has a right to refuse, it is a

factor to be considered but that fact is not the only

consideration3 . Court finds that the consent of a vehicle search does not violate the4 th and 5 th amendments

ii. I llin o is v. R o driguez [page 271] 1. F acts of the case

a. The police was invited into the apartment of Rodriguez by anon resident . Without a warrant they entered the apartmentand found drugs

2 . RU LE OF LAW: W arran t less sear ch es of a p remi se are p ermitt ed wh en th e police be li eve reas onab ly th at th ey h ave v olu nt ar yconsent f rom a p ers on who can gi ve consent

3. Court finds the search is okay because the police believed that aperson with authority consented to the search a. Doesnt matter if the person had authority but rather it was

reasonable to believe so . iii. Ge o rgia v. Rand o lph [page 276]

1. F acts of the case a. Respondent and his wife were separated . She returned to

the house and called the police for the return of her child . She volunteered to the police that husband had evidence ofcocaine use in house and gave consent to search .

b. Husband refused search

2 . Court found that the police has no right to search a house where oneperson consents to the search of a house and another person doesnot

3. RU LE OF LAW: a physically p resen t i nh abit ants express ref u sa l of consent to a police sear ch i s di spositi ve as to hu m, regard less of th e consent o f a fe llow occu pant

X. EXIG ENT CI RCUMSTANCESi. Brigham Cit y v. Stuart [page 407]


9/24


1 . F acts of the casea. Police officers responded to a call about a loud party .

Officers announced presence and entered premises . Arrested respondents and charged them with 3 charges

b. Respondents claim that there was a warrantless entry

2 .

Court said that the officers entry here was reasonable because theyreasonably believe that the violence was going to escalate within thehouse

3. The officers announcement in this case sufficed as a knock andannounce

4. RU LE OF LAW: W h ere th e police be li eve th at th ere i s danger occu rr i ng withi n a hou se, mere ly annou nci ng without k nocki ng i s su ff ici ent

ii. Mi nnesot a v . O lson [ page 413] 1. F acts of the case

a. Gunmen shot up gas station owner . Officers apprehended car

caught 1 man and the other got free . Police found a sack ofmoney and weapons in the car . The car was registered toRobert Olson .

b. Woman called in a tip with Olsons name and gave the addressof two women he was planning on escaping with . They weregiven a probable cause arrest bulletin but were ordered tostay away from the duplex . .Detective ordered the police toenter the house without permission

2 . The court said that if you are not in hot pursuit, there needs to beexigent circumstances to enter in a house without a warrant .

a. in this case, the respondent wasnt a known murderer he

was just a driver so there were no circumstances to warrantpolice to enter 3. RU LE OF LAW: You need exi gent ci rcu mst ances to ent er i nto a

hou se without a warran t iii. Rochi n v. C aliforni a [p age 416]

1. F acts of the case a. Police obtained evidence that the defendant was selling

narcotics . They forcibly entered his house and found himupstairs . When they asked him about the drugs, thedefendant swallowed the ones that he had in his hand . Thepolice took him to the hospital to have his stomach pumped to

retrieve evidence 2 . The court found that it is clear that the combination of entering the

house without a warrant and pumping the stomach without permissionis a violation of due process

i v . Schmerber v. Calif o rnia [page 418] 1. F acts of the case

a. Petitioner convicted of DU I. He was arrested at the hospitalwhile he was receiving treatment for injuries that he


10/24

suffered in an accident while driving drunk . Police asked thedoctor to draw his blood to obtain his BAC to be used in thetrial against the defendant .

2 . The court found that there is no violation of the 4 th and 14 th amendments because in this case BAC drops shortly after you stop

drinking. This would lead to a destruction of evidence . a. Taking blood samples is an effective way of testing BAC andseeing if person is intoxicated . The test was performed in areasonable setting

3. RU LE OF LAW: Th e constitutio n does not f orb i d th e st at es fr om mi nor i nt ru sions i nto a pers ons body u nder st r i ngent ly li mit ed conditions.

XI. TERRY STOPSa. Stop and F risk

i. Terr y v. State o f Ohi o [page 299] 1. F acts of the case :

a. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon . Officersaw suspicious activity as he witnessed Terry and anotherman walking back and forth in front of a store window . Sincethe officer thought that they might stick up the store, heapproached the asked them for identification . Officer spunTerry around and patted the outside of his clothes .

b. The police then seized the guns that he foud . The defendantclaimed that it was unreasonable search and seizure

2 . The court determined in order to be reasonable, police must be ableto state facts that would lead a reasonable person to reach the sameconclusion

a. F acts have to be looked objectivelyb. Good faith of the officer is not enough3 . I n this particular case, it was legitimate for the officer to approach

a. All the facts combined would lead a reasonable person to thesame conclusion

b. Officer can legitimately suspect danger long before he hasenough information to arrest

ii. N ew Jerse y v. T. L .O. [page 309] 1. F acts of the case :

a. Two girls were found smoking in a bathroom . After denyingsmoking, the teacher demanded to search her purse . I n the

purse, drugs were found and the girl admitted to sellingmarijuana

2 . The court said that searching by public authorities in school ispermissible more than in the case of belief

3 . The reasonableness of a search is a two-part testa. Whether the search is reasonable given circumstancesb. I s the scope of the search reasonable?


11/24


4 . I n this case, the court said that the search was not unreasonable . The fact that school officials heard about smoking meant there wasprobable cause to search the purse . After finding rolling papers,there was reason to believe that there was marijuana .

iii. F l o rida v. R o y er [page 335]

1.

F acts of the case:

a. Royer was witnessed in Miami I nternational Airport as havingsuspicious behavior . (His appearance, mannerisms, luggage,and actions suggested he was a drug courier .

b. He purchased a one-way ticket to New York City and checkedhis suitcases under another name . His plane ticket had adifferent name . Without his consent, detectives retrievedhis luggage from baggage check . Royer was asked if therecould be a search of his luggage . Without orally consenting heprovided a key for the locked suitcase and drugs were found .

2 . The court found that Royer was illegally detained when he was

brought into the interrogation room and the suitcases were seized . He was never informed that he was free to leave at any time toboard the plane .

iv. H iibel v. Sixth Judicial District C o urt [page 344] 1. F acts of the case

a. Officer receives a call saying that there was an assault by aman in a red and silver truck . Officer found the man drivingthe vehicle and thinks that he is intoxicated

b. Officer asked to see I D and the man refused . Officerarrested the man for not complying

c. Hiibel challenged the conviction, claiming it violated his F ifth

Amendment right not to incriminate himself and his F ourthAmendment right to be free from unreasonable searches . 2 . the Court ruled that the search did not violate the F ourth

Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion (the policeofficer was investigating the assault, and Hiibel was nearby) andinvolved only a minimally intrusive question (his name).

3 . I t also did not violate the F ifth Amendment because Hiibel neverargued that telling the officer his name would actually incriminatehim of any crime .

v. Mar y land v. Buie [page 350] 1. F acts of the case

a. 2 men committed armed robbery . Police executed searchwarrant for Buie. One of the detectives shouted into thebasement . Buie came out of the basement and the detectivewent into the basement to make sure there wasnt anotherperson and saw a jumpsuit in plain view matching the allegedrobbers ones .

2 . Court found that even though Buie expected privacy in his housedoesnt mean that the detectives couldnt enter in the house . I t was


12/24

reasonable of the detective to secure the house so there would beno random attacks on the police .

a. Arresting officers can take steps to ensure safety3 . RU LE OF LAW: Off icers do not need to h ave probab le cau se to

sear ch areas and arres ti ng areas .

XII.

MERE ENCOUNTERS ANDPROFI LI NG a. Other I nvestigatory Searches and Seizuresi. United States v. Mendenhall [page 321]

1. F acts of the casea. Respondent arrived in the Detroit Airport coming in from Los

Angeles and was acting in a behavior that made him seem likea drug courier . Agents then approached her and asked to seeher identification and airline ticket . The airline ticket was ina different name than the identification . Was then asked ifshe would accompany to a office and she complied .

b. Agent asked if they could do a search of her person and

handbag and advised her that she could decline . Sheassented . She undressed and removed drugs from herundergarments

2 . The court said that the agents action was constitutional if theyreasonably suspected the respondent of wrongdoing

a. Seized means if the person reasonably believed they couldnot leave

b. There is no seizure here . i. There is no reason that the defendant would not

believe that she could not leavec. Even though there was no seizure the fourth amendment

rights were violated during searchd. The totality of the circumstances led to believe that thedefendant consented to search

i. The defendant was 22 with a highschool education,she could understand consent

ii. Calif o rnia v. H o dari D. [page 329] 1. F acts of the case

a. Officers dressed in plain clothes saw 5 youths surrounded acar . When the youths saw the officers car approaching theyapparently panicked, and took flight . Hodari meanwhile hademerged from a back alley and an officer tackled him to the

ground. During the tackle he appeared to have tossed a smallrock on the ground, later identified to be cocaine . Hodari wasfound to be carrying 130 in cash and a paper along with thecocaine.

2 . The court held that this was not a seizure within the meaning of theF ourth Amendment and that the drugs were not fruit of an illegalsearch .

XIII. ROADBLOCKS


13/24


i. Delaware v. Pr o use [page 362] 1. F acts of the case

a. A policeman stopped a car at random and it smelled likemarijuana . Seized marijuana that was I n plain view. Therewas no previous suspicious activitiy before he stopped the

vehicle. 2 . The court said that traffic violations happen so many times wherelicense and registration is required . Licenses, insurance, registrationare safety implementations to make sure that the roads are keptsafe

a. There should be no stopping unless there is reasonablesuspicion

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Random spot ch eck s do not ju sti f y i nt ru sion u nder Fou r th A mendment

ii. Cit y o f I ndianap o lis v. Edm o nd [page 368] 1. F acts of the case

a. City of I ndianapolis began to operate vehicle checkpoints onI ndianapolis roads in an effort to interdict unlawful drugs . The search only is authorized if reasonable suspicion occurs

b. Respondents were both stopped and filed suit againstcheckpoints

2 . The court says that the checkpoint is meant to protect roadwaysafety but the threat of criminal activity is not enough to satisfyreasoning for checkpoints

a. The I llinois drug checkpoint is the same as general interestin crime control

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Police must have the usual requirement of

individualized suspicion where [they] seek to employ a checkpointprimarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes .iii. I llin o is v. L idster [page 375]

1. F acts of the case a. Motorist hit elderly man and then drove off . Police set up a

checkpoint to try and find out information about hit and run . Lidster almost hit police officer during checkpoint andsmelled of alcohol . He was later convicted of a DU I

2 . The court held that the stop was constitutional because the publicinterest was grave

a. The stops only interfered only minimally within the liberty

that the fourth amendment is trying to protect XIV. SPECI AL NEEDS &BORDER SEARCHES

i. Saff o rd Unified Sch oo l District #1 v. Redding [page 314] 1. F acts of the case

a. Assistant Principal asked Wilson to go to the office andshowed her planner which contained knives, lighters, etc . Sheclaimed that none of the items belonged to her . He showed


14/24

her various over the counter and prescription pills and askedher about them . She denied again .

b. She was taken to a school nurse and strip-searched includingwithin her undergarments . Mother filed suit for conductingillegal strip search .

2 .

Court said that the suspicion of Wilson was enough to justify asearch of her backpack and outer clothing . The drugs however werenot dangerous enough in nature to warrant the search

b. Special Needsi. B o ard o f Educati o n o f I ndependent Sch oo l District N o . 92 o f

P o ttawat o mie C o unt y v. Earls [page 390] 1. F acts of the case

a. The School District adopted the Student Activites DrugTesting Policy which requires all middle and high schoolstudents to consent to drug testing in order to participate inany extracurricular activity

2 . The court says that the school in this case has presented specificevidence of drug use . Drug testing therefore, does not have to bebased on individual suspicion

a. I t places a higher burden on teachersb. Unfairly can target members of certain groups

ii. United States v. F l o res-M o ntan o [page 385] 1. F acts of the case

a. Customs seized marijuana from F lores at the internationalborder . 2 customs officers inspected the tank . The mechanicdissembled tank and found the marijuana . The total searchtook about 2 5 -35 minutes .

2 . The court said that reasonable suspicion that is needed to search aperson is not required for vehicles3 . Expectation of privacy at the border is much less .

XV. EXCLUSI ONARY RULEBASI CSa. The Rules Application to F ederal and State Proceedings

i. W o lf v. C o l o rad o [page 611] 1. F acts of the case :

a. Wolf was convicted for conspiring to commit abortions basedon evidence obtained in violation of F ourth Amendmentssearch and seizure clause .

b. He claimed that his F ourth Amendment constitutional right

to be free from illegal searches and seizures had beenviolated and so evidence should have been excluded .

2 . RU LE OF LAW: Th e Du e Process C lau se does not prohi bit th e admi ssion of ev i dence obt ai ned du r i ng an i llega l sear ch and se izu re i n St at e cou r t s. Exclu di ng fa ct s th at are h earsa y fr om probab le cau se confu ses th e common sense st andard of probab le cau se .

ii. Mapp v. Ohi o [page 618]


15/24


1. F acts of the casea. Three police officers arrived at Mapp's (D) house pursuant

to information that a person (who was wanted for questioningin a bombing) was hiding out. The officers knocked at thedoor, but D was advised by her attorney not to admit them

without a search warrant . Three hours later, more officersshowed up and forcibly entered the house . Upon request, anofficer showed D an alleged search warrant . D grabbed thewarrant and placed it in her bosom . An officer recovered itand D was restrained . Eventually, obscene materials forwhich she was ultimately convicted were discovered in thesearch of the house .

2 . All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of theConstitution is inadmissible in a state court .

3 . RU LE OF LAW: All evidence discovered as a result of a search andseizure conducted in violation of the F ourth Amendment of the

United States Constitution (Constitution) shall be inadmissible inState court proceedings . XVI. GOOD F AI TH EXCEPT I ON

a. The Good F aith Exceptioni. U nited States v . Leon [page 632]

1. F acts of the casea. Police officers started surveilling . A search warrant was

given based on the surveillance . Drugs were seized during thesearch warrant . Defendant was charged with federal drug-trafficking

2 . The court found that the 4 th amendments exclusionary rule should

be modified to permit the introduction of evidence obtained in thereasonable good-faith belief that a search or seizure was in accordwith the 4 th amendment .

a. The officers reliance on the warrant has to be reasonableb. The courts can allow a good-faith exception to the

exclusionary rule . ii. Groh v. Ramirez [page 647]

1. F acts of the casea. Groh applied for a search warrant to search the Ramirez

ranch for illegal weapons . On the warrant, he mistakely leftout the exact items he was looking for . Ramirezes later sued

Groh saying that their 4th

amendment rights were violated . They said that the fact that the warrant was completedincorrectly violated the 4 th amendment requirement that anyitems searched for has to be layed out in warrant .

2 . The court found that the search was unreasonable under the 4 th amendment . His warrant was invalid because it did not meet therequirement that a warrant has to describe the things or people to


16/24

be seized . Even though the magistrate approved the warrant theRamirezes did not know what the warrant was for .

a. No reasonable officer could have believed that the warrantwas valid so he did not have qualified immunity

iii. Hudson v. Michigan [page 624]

1.

F acts of the casea. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession afterpolice found cocaine and a gun in his house . The police had asearch warrant but did not follow the knock and announcerule .

2 . The court ruled that evidence does not need to be excluded whenthey violate the knock-and-announce rule .

iv. Herring v . U nited States [page 652]1. F acts of the case

a. Herrings vehicle was searched after he was apprehended . Police found methamphetamie in his pocket and a gun under

the seat of his truck . The initial search was made after afaulty arrest warrant . The warrant was supposed to beremoved 5 months earlier from the computer system .

2 . The court held that a criminal defendants 4 th amendment rights arenot violated when police make mistakes that lead to unlawfulsearches . They are merely the result of negligence and are notdisregard for the constitution .

a. Evidence obtained because of this is admissible and notsubject to the exclusionary rule

XVII. S TANDI NG a. The S cope of the Exclusionary Rules

i. Rakas v. I llin o is [page 672] 1. F acts of the casea. Police officers stopped a car that matched a description of a

getaway car in a robbery . Petitioners were passengers andneither one of them owned the car . A gun and ammunitionwere found in the car .

2 . The court found that the petitioners did not have a reasonableexpectation of privacy in the areas, which were the subject of thesearch and seizure . They did not have standing in this manner

ii. Minnes o ta v. Ols o n [page 681] 1. F acts of the case

a. Gas station was robbed and the station manager was fatallyshot . The police officer heard a dispatcher report thatEcker was a suspect in the robbery . They went to the houseand at the same time a car arrived . The car spun out ofcontrol and two people ran out of it . Ecker was captured inhis house .

b. The police found the money and a weapon inside fo the car aswell as a title certificate with the respondent Olson . The


17/24


next day they received a tip stating that Olson was involvedand that he was planning on leaving town . They arrived at hisfriends house and entered without permission .

2 . The court found that since the defendant was an overnight guest, hehad reasonable expectation of privacy . Since the police had already

surrounded the apartment, there were no exigent circumstances andthey should have waited for the defendant to leave the house . XVIII. F RUI T OF THE POI SONOUS TREE

a. F ruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrinei. Br ow n v. I llin o is [page 690]

1. F acts of the casea. Brown was arrested for murder . The arrest lacked probable

cause and was illegal . The officers warned him of his Mirandarights . They told him that they recovered a bulled in theceiling of a pool hall and that they were comparing it to thevictims body. The plaintiff then answered the question .

b. He then gave two statements proving factual accounts of themurder . 2 . The court found that under the rule of Wong Sun, a Miranda warning

is an important factor in determining whether the confession isobtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest

a. Here the first statement came less than two hours after hisillegal arrest with no intervening event

3 . RU LE OF LAW: A Mi randa warn i ng does not su ff ici ent ly break th e cau sa l ch ai n between an i llega l arres t and a confess ion

ii. N ix v. Williams [page 697] 1. F acts of the case

a. Williams was arrested for the murder of a 10 year old whosebody he disposed of on a gravel road . Police engaged in asearch for the childs body . During the search after anofficer appealed for help, Williams made statements to thepolice without an attorney, which helped lead them to thebody. Williams was only read his rights after he wasarrested .

2 . The court ruled that under the inevitable doctrin, because theevidence would have been discovered within a short period of time,the method in which it was obtained becomes irrelevant and suchevidence is still allowed against defendant .

3 . RU LE OF LAW: It ems th at wou ld i nev it ab ly be di scovered can be admitt ed even i f th e i niti al metho d to gai n i nformatio n i s not lawf u l.

XI X. FIF TH AMENDMENT MI RANDAa. The F ifth Amendment and Miranda

i. Miranda v. Ariz o na [page 470] 1. F acts of the case


18/24

a. The defendants offered incriminating evidence during policeinterrogations without prior notification of their rightsunder the F ifth Amendment of the US Constitution

2 . The court found that the government needs to notify arrestedindividuals of their F ifth Amendment constitutional rights,

specifically:

their right to remain silent; an explanation that anythingthey say could be used against them in court; their right to counsel;and their right to have counsel appointed to represent them ifnecessary .

3 . Without this notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in aninterrogation will not be admissible in court

4 . RU LE OF LAW: Governmen t autho r iti es need to i nform i ndi v i du als of th ei r Fi f th A mendment co nstitutio nal r i ght s prior to an i nt err ogation followi ng an arres t

b. Adequate Warningsi. Miss o uri v. Seibert [page 501]

1. F acts of the casea. Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder, after a firewas set to her mobile hobe, killing someone . She was theninterrogated by a police officer who initially did not rea herher Miranda warnings . Once she confessed the officer took abreak and read her her rights and resumed questioning aftershe made a waiver .

2 . The court said that the second Post-Miranda confession is notadmissible when there has been a prior confession has been givenunless the Miranda warning and the break are sufficient to give thedefendant the reasonable belief that she can decide not to speak

with police3 . RU LE OF LAW: I n order to u se a post-Mi rand iz ed confess ion, af t er eliciti ng an u n-Mi rand iz ed confess ion, th e police mu st gi ve th e defendan t ample opportu nity to co nsi der th e effe ct o f th e Mi randa warn i ngs.

XX. FIF TH AMENDMENT CUSTODY ANDI NTERROGAT I ONa. Custody

i. Stansbur y v. Calif o rnia [page 483] 1. F acts of the case

a. The surrounding in custodial interrogations is what makes itpersuasive

b. Policemans plan has no effect on whether or not someone isin custody

c. Officers belief or knowledge only counts if he lets thesuspect know

ii. Rh o de I sland v. I nnis [page 488] 1. F acts of the case

a. I nnis was arrested, read his Miranda rights, and put into thebackseat of a patrol car . The police discussed that the gun


19/24


used for the crime might be found by a child and therespondent disclosed the location of the weapon so thatthere would not be an accident .

2 . The court found that the conversation that I nnis had with the policewas not an interrogation and therefore the rights under the F ifth

Amendment were not violated . I nterrogations should only be limitedto conduct that police perform that they know would get a response3 . RU LE OF LAW: A n i nt err ogatio n shou ld be def i ned to i nclu de only

words or conduct th at th e police shou ld h ave known wou ld reas onab ly i nf lu ence an i ndi v i du al to resp ond

XXI. FIF TH AMENDMENT I NVOCAT I ON OF MI RANDA RIG HTSa. I nvocation of Right to Silence

i. Michigan v M o sel y [page 515] 1. F acts of the case

a. Mosely was arrested in connection with certain robberies . Heexercised his right to remain silent after a police officer

seeking to interrogate the defendant as to the robberiesadvised him of his Miranda rights . The police officer endedthe interrogation after the defendant invoked his right . More than 2 hours later, another officer took the defendantto another place and advised him of his Miranda rights andquestioned him about another unrelated murder . He thenobtained an incriminating statement from the defendant .

2 . The court found that once a defendant exercised his right to remainsilent, he may later be interrogated on another subject as long as areasonable time has passed and a new warning is given .

ii. Ed w ards v. Ariz o na [page 519]

1. F acts of the casea. Edwards was charged with robbery . A warrant was issued andEdwards was arrested . After Edwards was read his Mirandawarnings, he requested for a lawyer . The next morning 2detectives went to question Edwards without the presence ofhis attorney and they obtained a confession out of thepetitioner

2 . The court found that according to Miranda v . Arizona, all policeinterrogation should stop when a person requests for an attorney . I fthe officer starts a conversation with the defendant whichaccording to a reasonable officer will lead to incriminating

statements, the conversation will be considered police interrogationb. UnambiguousI nvocation Requirement

i. Davis v. United States [page 512] 1. F acts of the case

a. Davis was interviewed at the Naval I nvestigative Serviceoffice regarding a murder outside a pool hall on the navalbase . He waived his right to remain silent and to counsel by


20/24

mouth and in writing . Later he suggested he may want to talkto a lawyer and later said he did not want a lawyer .

2 . The court found that if a suspect makes reference to an attorneythat is ambigious, there does not need to be a stop of questioning . The suspect must unquestionably request counsel .

a.

I n this case the N I S agents did not have to stop questioningDavis. XXII. I NTERCEPT I ON OF ORAL COMMUNI CAT I ONS

a. Eavesdropping Through Secret Government Agentsi. H o ffa v. United States [page 593]

1. F acts of the casea. A government informant was in a hotel room with a criminal

defendant during a trial . The defendant often conferredwith his attorneys in the room . The informant was there inorder to obtain information from the defendant to be usedduring a second trial for witness tampering .

2 . The court found that the petitioner was not relying on the securityof his hotel suite when he made the incriminating statements to theinformant . The informant was in the suite by invitaition and everyconversation which he heard was directed to him or knowinglycarried on in his present

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Th e conduct by th e governmen t by placi ng a secre t i nformer i n th e qu ar t ers of a defendan t du r i ng a cr i mi nal t r i al does not v iolat e th e defendan ts 4 th , 5 th , and 6 th amendmen t r i ght s.

ii. United States v. White [page 595] 1. F acts of the case

a. Government authorities through an informant secretlyrecorded conversations with the Respondent White . Theinformant was not present at trial but the recordedconversations were admitted

2 . The court argues that the respondent could not have relied on theexpectation that a conversation is private .

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Th e elect ronic re cord i ng of conversa tio ns between an i ndi v i du al and governmen t agent s, without a warran t , does not v iolat e th e Fou r th Amendment

XXIII. SI XTH AMENDMENT RIG HT TO COUNSELa. Generally

i. Betts v. Brad y [page 31] 1. F acts of the case

a. Betts was indicted for robbery in circuit court in Maryland . He was unable to retain an attorney . When he requested thatthe court appoint him an attorney, the court said that thecourt does not have to appoint counsel for poor defendantsexcept in prosecutions for murder and rape


21/24


2 . The court found that while there is an implication for a free trial,there is no requirement

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Th e 14 th amendment o f th e Constitutio n does not mean th at any poor defendan t i s entit led to a cou r t appoi nt ed/s t at e compensa t ed cou nse l.

ii.

Gide o n v. Wain w right [page 35] 1. F acts of the casea. Gideon was charged in F lordia with having broken in and

entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor . The defendant appeared in court without counsel or money . The defendant asked the court to appoint counsel for himsaying he was entitled to it . The court denied him counsel andthe defendant represented himself . The jury found himguilty

2 . The 6 th amendments guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right . The court got it wrong in Betts v . Brady . Governments spend a lot of

money each year to construct and maintain an environment for tryingcriminal defendants . Lawyers are an integral part of this process . 3 . RU LE OF LAW: Th e 6 th amendment s gu aran t ee of cou nse l i s a

f u ndament al r i ght made obli gato ry u pon th e St at es by th e 14 th amendmen t

iii. Argersinger v. H amlin [page 39] 1. F acts of the case

a. The petitioner was a poor person charged with carrying aconcealed weapon . I t was a judge-trial and the petitioner hadno representation . He was sentenced to a 90-day jail term .

2 . The court found that the requirement of counsel may well be

necessary for a fair trial even in a petty-offense prosecution3 . RU LE OF LAW: U nless th ere i s a wai ver, no pers on shou ld be i mpri soned for any o ffense wh eth er class i f i ed as petty , mi sdemean or, or fe lony, u nless cou nse l at t ri al represen t ed hi m.

b. Waiver of the Right to Counseli. F aretta v. Calif o rnia [page 44]

1. F acts of the casea. The appellant was arrested for grand theft and was

appointed a public defender . The appellant tried to waivethat right because wanted to represent himself . The courttested his legal skills and rejected his request .

2 . The court said that the right of self-representation finds support inthe structure of the 6 th amendment as well as in the English andcolonial jurisprudence .

XXIV. SI XTH AMENDMENT I NEFF ECT IV E ASSI TANCE OF COUNSELa. I neffective Assistance of Counsel

i. Strickland v. Washingt o n [page 67] 1. F acts of the case


22/24

a. Respondent committed 3 groups of crimes . He gave astatement admitting to 3 rd group of crimes . Counsel triedpretrial motions until he found out that the defendantconfessed to 2 other murders . He waived counsels advice andpleaded to all 3 counts .

b.

Counsel suggested the defendant to have an advisory jury athis capital sentencing and he went such advice and waivedthat right . Counsel did not look for further characterwitnesses or psychological exam because defendant seemedok.

i. Counsel was hopeless about situation . ii. Thought that plea showed enough about background

1. Didnt want cross-examination2 . The court said that while counsel might have committed error, it

wasnt so ineffective as to overturn a death sentence . 3 . RU LE OF LAW: E rr or alone i s not su ff ici ent to prove th at a

defendan t w as depr i ved of th ei r constitutio nal r i ght to effe cti ve ass i st ance of cou nse l. ii. F l o rida v. N ix o n [page 79]

1. F acts of the casea. Nixon kidnapped and murdered a young woman and then

burned her body and her car . He confessed this to hisbrother . His brother informed the police . When taken intocustody Nixon confessed in graphic detail . Nixons counselconcluded that respondents guilt was not subject to anydispute and tried to plead but the state would only acceptthe death penalty .

b. Counsel tried to argue that the respondent was not normal . 2 . The court held that the in order for council to be deemedineffective they would have to show that counsels concessionstrategy was unreasonable . When counsel informs the defendant ofthe strategy counsel believes to be in the defendants best interestand the defendant is unresponsive, counsels strategic choice is notimpeded by any blanket rule demanding the defendants explicitconsent

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Ju st becau se cou nse l does not get th e defendan t s express consent to a st ra t egy o f concedi ng gui lt i n a capit al t r i al does not mean automatic ally th at cou nse ls

perf ormance i s lacki ng iii. R o mpilla v. Beard [page 87]

1. F acts of the casea. Respondent Rompilla was convicted of murder . He appealed on

the grounds that his counsel had not properly investigatedmitigating factors

2 . The court argued that the original counsel had relied too much onthe uncooperative respondent and his family .


23/24


3 . RU LE OF LAW: Even wh en a capit al defendan t and hi s fami lymembers say th at th ere i s no miti gati ng ev i dence, hi s lawyer i s bou nd to make reas onab le eff or t s to o bt ai n and rev i ew mat er i al th at cou nse l knows th e prosecution wi ll probab ly re ly on as ev i dence of aggrava tio n at th e t r i als sent enci ng ph ase

iv.

Gl o ver v. United States [page 98] 1. F acts of the casea. Glover was VP and General Counsel of Chicago truck drivers .

He used the union money for himself . District Court said thatmoney laundering should not be grouped with other offenses . Glover said that his sentence should be corrected becausefailure of counsel to press grouping issue led to ineffectivecounsel

2 . The court said that any increase in sentence must meet a standardof significance . Although the amount by which a defendantssentence is increased by a particular decision may be a factor to

consider in determining whether counsels performance in failing toargue the point constitutes ineffective assistance it cannot serve asa bar to a showing of prejudice

XXV. SI XTH AMENDMENT I NTERROGAT I ON LAWa. Pre-Miranda Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel

i. Massiah v. United States [page 467] 1. F acts of the case

a. Massiah along with conspirator Colson were indicted fornarcotics offenses . Both pled not guilty and were released onbail. Colson, without petitioners knowledge, decided tocooperate with the government . He permitted agents to place

a radio transmitter under the seat of his car so that agentscould hear conversations in the car . Petitioner made severalincriminating statements during the conversation

2 . The court found that the defendants own the prosecution, asevidence against him at trial could not constitutionally useincriminating statements obtained by federal agents under thesecircumstances .

3 . RU LE OF LAW: A su spect i s deni ed th e bas ic prot ectio ns of th e 6 th amendment gu aran t ee wh en th ere was u sed agai nst hi m at hi s t r i al ev i dence of hi s own i ncr i mi nati ng words, which federa l agen t s h ad de li bera t ely elicit ed fr om hi m af t er h e h ad been

i ndict ed i n th e absen ce of hi s cou nse l. b. Police Questioning and Massiah Rights

i. Bre w er v. Williams [page 529] 1. F acts of the case

a. Williams, after being arraigned on charges of abducting a 10 year old girl, was traveling with an officer between two partsof I owa. Even though the defendants lawyers instructedthat no questioning should take place outside of their


24/24

presence, the defendant was convinced by the officer to givedirections to the body of the girl .

2 . The court found that the evidence should be suppressed because thedefendant was denied counsel during an interrogation environment .

3 . RU LE OF LAW: Once ju dici al proceed i ngs begi n, th e 6 th

amendmen t to th e US Constitutio n dict at es th at th e su spect h as a r i ght to cou nse l. ii. K uhlmann v. Wils o n [page 533]

1. F acts of the casea. An informer planted in a suspects jail cell obtained

incriminating information from a suspect after being told notto start the conversation, but to listen for incriminatinginformation .

2 . RU LE OF LAW: When police plant an informer with a jailed suspectand the informer does not ask questions, the suspects statements tothe informer are admissible unless the informer took coercive steps

other than listening to elicit incriminating information .

Criminal Procedure Textbook Outline

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Procedure Textbook Outline