CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UPDATE - fd.orgfln.fd.org/files/training/CourtWebCriminalProcedure01.pdf ·...
Transcript of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE UPDATE - fd.orgfln.fd.org/files/training/CourtWebCriminalProcedure01.pdf ·...
Maryland v. King
133 S.Ct. 158 (2013)
Arrestees may be swabbed for DNA
Part of “booking” procedures
5-4 decision
Justice Kennedy: “narrow decision”
Reactions to decision?
CODIS DNA DATABASE
As of March 2014
10,867,894 offender
profiles,
1,830,544 arrestee
profiles
Produced over
239,158 hits assisting
in more than 229,704
investigations
Judicial and Legislative Reactions
to Maryland v. King
Federal DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005
Upheld in U.S. v. Mitchell (3rd Cir. 2011) (en banc)
California DNA Act (Prop. 69)
Haskell v. Harris (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc)
Legislative limits on use of DNA databank
California AB 1697 (cannot use DNA databank for certain types of research)
Additional Reactions
Pretzantzin v. Holder, 725 F.3d 161 (2nd Cir.
2013)
Identity not limited to name alone
Includes alias, photographs, Social Security number
or DNA profile
King v. State, 434 Md. 472, 7 A.3d 1035 (2013)
Even if violation of DNA Collection Act, suppression is
not the proper remedy
Fernandez v. California
134 S.Ct. 1126 (2014)
Co-tenant can give consent even if police have removed objecting co-defendant from the building Limits Georgia v. Randolph
(2006)
United States v. Moore, No. 13-10464 (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2014) (lazy suspects don’t get to argue no consent)
Alito, J.
“Denying someone in Rojas’ position the
right to allow the police to enter her home
would also show disrespect for her
independence. Having beaten Rojas,
petitioner would bar her from controlling
access to her home until such time as he
chose to relent. The Fourth Amendment
does not give him that power.”
Navarette v. California
134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014) (5-4)
Anonymous tip was
sufficient to provide
reasonable suspicion
for traffic stop
Thomas, J.: “Close
case”
Dissent
“The Court’s opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail consisting of two parts patent falsity: (1) that anonymous 911 reports of traffic violations are reliable so long as they correctly identify a car and its location, and (2) that a single instance of careless or reckless driving necessarily supports a reasonable suspicion of drunkenness.”
Reaction to Navarette
Zabinski v. Comm’r of Public Safety (Minn. Ct. of App. 2014)
Challenge to revocation of driver’s license
Court held stop was unjustified
Lacked reasonable articulable suspicion because anonymous caller /not victim of driver’s actions
Caller claimed driver going wrong direction
2-1 decision (strong dissent) (“corroboration and indicia of reliability”)
Riley v. California
134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014)
4th Amendment does not permit police to search a cell phone incident to arrest
Police must get a warrant unless “exigent circumstances”
Reactions to Riley
1. Changes in technology creating more “exigent circumstances”
2. Courts using “good faith” exception for searches before Riley
3. Courts using third-party and plain view doctrines to allow searches
4. Case limiting searches of other devices incident to arrest, including computers
5. Limitations on police searches after private searches - People v. Evans (Cal.Ct.App. Oct. 3, 2014)
United States v. Jones
132 S.Ct. 945 (2012)
Using beeper to track car is a trespass search Need probable cause and
warrant
How about tracking without beeper? Courts split
May be able to get real-time cell site information from suspect’s mobile phone service provider
Authorities
Applying 3rd Party
Doctrine
Smith v. Maryland, 442
U.S. 735 (1979)
ECPA of 1986 allows govt.
to get info from third-party
service providers (18 USC
§ 2703(d)) (ct. order without
p/c or warrant)
In re Application of the U.S.
for Historical Cell Site Data,
724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir.
2013)
Rejecting 3rd Party
Doctrine
“Mosaic theory”
(Sotomayor, J.
concurrence)
Tracey v. State (Fla. Sup.
Ct. 10/16/14)
United States v. Davis, 754
F.3d 1205 (11th Cir.
2014)(en banc petition
granted)
STANDING ISSUES
People v. Sotelo,
2014 BL 286452
(Colo. Oct. 14, 2014)
Unauthorized driver of
rental vehicle’s
expectation of privacy
in gift wrapped
packages in car
Fourth Amendment and the
Mentally Ill
Sheehan v. City of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014)
ADA applies to search and seizure of mentally ill suspects
Heien v. North Carolina
No. 13-604 Traffic stop based on
mistake of law
Officer thought two operative tail-lights were required
Argued Oct. 6, 2014
“Reasonable” searches and “reasonable” mistakes
Los Angeles v. Patel,
cert. granted, Oct. 20, 2014
2 key issues:
1. Facial challenges to ordinances / statutes under Fourth Amendment?
2. Does hotel have REP under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry?
Rodriguez v. United States
No. 13-9972 Petition Pending:
Whether an officer may extend an already completed traffic stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification.
Does “de minimis delay” comport with Illinois v. Caballes (2005)?
Kansas v. Cheever
134 S.Ct. 596 (2013)
State’s use of
evidence from court-
ordered mental
evaluation does not
violate 5th Amend.
privilege
Salinas v. Texas
133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013)
Pre-Miranda silence can be used against defendant who does not expressly invoke 5th Amendment right
New Developments: People v. Tom (Cal.
2014)
Kaley v. United States
134 S.Ct. 1090 (2014)
Courts may issue
post-indictment ex
parte restraining order
to freeze assets
defendant wants to
use to retain counsel
Hinton v. Alabama
134 S.Ct. 1081 (2014)
Counsel’s failure to
seek extra funding for
competent forensic
expert constituted
ineffective assistance
of counsel
Cross-examination
of Defense Expert
Q: Mr. Payne, do you have some problem with your vision?
A: Why, yes.
Q: How many eyes do you have?
A: One.
Ohio v. Clark,
No. 13-1351 (cert. granted 10/2/14) Whether an individual's
obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause; and
Whether a child's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher's concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.
Alleyne v. United States
Sixth Amendment
right to trial by jury
requires a jury to
determine facts that
increase a mandatory
minimum sentence.
Breyer, J. Concurrence
“But Apprendi has
now defined the
relevant legal regime
for an additional
decade. And, in my
view, the law should
no longer tolerate the
anomaly that the
Apprendi/Harris
distinction creates.”
Reaction to Alleyne
Alleyne is not retroactive to cases on collateral review In re Moss (11th Cir.
2013)
In re Payne (10th Cir. 2013)
In re Kemper (5th Cir. 2013)
Hughes v. United States (9th Cir. Oct. 23, 2014)
Warger v. Shauers
(argued Oct. 8, 2014)
Whether Federal Rule of
Evidence 606(b) permits
a party moving for a new
trial based on juror
dishonesty during voir
dire to introduce juror
testimony about
statements made during
deliberations that tend to
show the alleged
dishonesty.