criminal law and procedure 2

Stop-and-frisk

A limited "stop-and-frisk" of a person or vehicle for weapons is allowed where police have a "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity is or will occur.

Why is judicial review important?

Limits the power of the government and impose constitutional limitations.

How is loitering different from vagrancy?

Loitering is more about an act while vagrancy is more about a status.

Criminal defenses

(1) asserting lack of capacity Example: insanity, intoxication (2) asserting excuse or justification Example: duress, necessity, and mistake (3) justifying use of force Example: self defense, defense of others, defense of home (4) relying on constitutional or statutory rights Example: double jeopardy, statute of limitations (5) assailing government misconduct. Example: entrapment, selective prosecution

vagrancy (common law)

(1) living without visible means of support; (2) being unemployed; (3) being able to work but refusing to do so.

State v. Nemeth

-16 year old Brian Nemeth was afraid of his abusive, alcoholic mother Suzanne -Suzanne banged on his door for hours, threatening to kill him -When she stopped, Brian found his mother and shot her in the head five times with his hunting bow -He was initially charged with murder but the seventh district court of appeals allowed claim of self defense under battered children syndrome

Wilson v. Arkansas

-Sharlene Wilson sold drugs to undercover cops -Police then applied for and obtained warrant to search Ms. Wilson's home and to arrest her. -When the police arrived, they found the main door to Ms. Wilson's house open. The officers opened the unlocked screen door and walked in, identified themselves as police officers, and said that they had a warrant. -Wilson's attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search, claiming it was invalid on the grounds that the officers had failed to "knock and announce" before entering. -A unanimous Court held that the common-law "knock-and announce" principle forms a part of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry.

What are the major exceptions to the warrant requirement?

-plain view -emergency situation -search of a motor vehicle based on probable cause to believe that it contains articles an officer is entitled to seize is justified because of the inherent mobility of a vehicle. -A search incident to a lawful arrest -A search conducted in "hot pursuit" -consent

Olmstead v. U.S.

-suspected bootlegger -federal agents installed wiretaps in his office and in the streets near his home -this did not violate his fourth or fifth amendment rights because he spoke of his illegal affairs voluntarily and there was no search or seizure of tangible objects

Katz v. U.S.

-suspected of transmitting gambling information -federal agents attached eavesdropping device to public phone booth often used by Katz -convicted of illegal transmission of wagering information -on appeal Katz challenged conviction but denied due to the absence of physical intrusion into the phone booth -The supreme court ruled that Katz was entitled to fourth amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

Exceptions to knock and announce at time of Wilson decision

-threat of physical violence, -case where prisoner escapes from officer and retreats into the dwelling, -when police believe evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given.

bill of attainder

A legislative act imposing punishment without trial upon persons deemed guilty of treason or felonies (prohibited by the U.S. Constitution);

Federal Anti-Riot Act

A federal law enacted in 1968 making it a crime to travel or use interstate or foreign commerce facilities in connection with inciting, participating in, or aiding acts of violence.

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996

A federal statute designed to effectuate reforms in administration of the death penalty by curtailing successive petitions for habeas corpus by prisoners sentenced to death.

Text-Messages

A jury in a Washington case convicted a man for drug dealing based on text messages. A man was arrested for drug dealing. Shortly after he received a text message soliciting drugs. The police posed as the seller and arrested the solicitor. The Court argued that text messages have no expectation of privacy because they are public domain. How does this fit with the decision in Katz v. United States? What do think could be other communications that are public domain? Should they be protected under the Fourth Amendment?

Substantial capacity test

A person is not criminally responsible "if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he/she lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

disorderly conduct

A person who recklessly, knowingly or intentionally: (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct (like disrupting traffic) (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons

ex post facto law

A retroactive law that criminalizes actions that were legal at the time they were taken or increases punishment for a criminal act after it was committed.

Florida v. J.L.*

After an anonymous caller reported to the Miami-Dade Police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun, officers went to the bus stop and saw three black males, one of whom, J.L., was wearing a plaid shirt. Apart from the tip, the officers had no reason to suspect any of the three of illegal conduct. The officers did not see a firearm or observe any unusual movements. One of the officers frisked J.L. and seized a gun from his pocket. J.L., who was then almost 16, was charged under state law with carrying a concealed firearm without a license and possessing a firearm while under the age of 18. The trial court granted J.L.'s motion to suppress the gun as the fruit of an unlawful search. On appeal, the state argued that the officers didn't have any other options and they had enough evidence, through the anonymous tip, to search J.L. without a warrant. In reversing, the Supreme Court of Florida held the search invalid under the Fourth Amendment Is an anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun sufficient under the Fourth Amendment to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person? The Supreme Court said NO. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that "[a]n anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, without more, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person." The Court concluded that the officers' suspicion that J. L. was carrying a weapon arose not from their own observations but from an anonymous tip, that the tip lacked reliability, and that the tip "provided no predictive information and therefore left the police without means to test the informant's knowledge or credibility." It was not enough that the person providing the anonymous tip could tell the officer what J.L. was wearing. The Supreme Court says there should not even be an exception if the anonymous tip says the person has a gun. What if people just started calling in false anonymous tips to get revenge on others? POLICE CANNOT JUST USE AN ANONYMOUS TIP WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO GO ON.

Aguilar v. Texas

Aguilar test (1964) was established approving anonymous informant tips if (a) it could be shown the informant was reliable, and (b) some underlying information could be provided to show how the informant reached the information in their tip.

US v. Lopez

Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grader, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Lopez was found guilty and sentenced to six months' in jail and two years' supervised release. Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and reversed a student's conviction for carrying a handgun to school. The Court found that the law, in its full reach, was beyond the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Resisting Arrest

All jurisdictions make it an offense to resist arrest. Some statutes make a distinction between simply resisting arrest and resisting arrest with force or violence. Many courts have abandoned the common-law rule that one could resist unlawful arrest since the rationale for it no longer exists. (Arrestees are now promptly taken before magistrates and have the availability of legal counsel to contest questionable arrests.)

indirect contempt

An act committed outside the presence of the court that insults the court or obstructs a judicial proceeding.

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

An act of Congress that specifies that insanity is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under a federal statute and details the requirements for establishing such a defense.

Thermal images

An increasingly common device in the war on illegal drugs is the infrared thermal imaging device, which detects heat waves emanating from inside homes, greenhouses, and other structures. Such a device can provide a strong indication whether marijuana is being grown inside the closed structure. The majority of federal courts that have considered this issue have ruled that the use of thermal imaging devices is not a search under the Fourth Amendment.

direct contempt

An obstructive or insulting act committed by a person in the immediate presence of the court.

Obstruction of justice (common law)*

Any act that prevented, obstructed, impeded, or hindered the administration of justice was considered a common-law misdemeanor. This includes obstructing an officer, tampering with jurors or witnesses, preparing false evidence and destroying evidence.

Tennessee v. Garner*

At about 10:45 p. m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Elton Hymon and Leslie Wright were dispatched to answer a "prowler inside call." Upon arriving at the scene they saw a woman standing on her porch and gesturing toward the adjacent house. She told them she had heard glass breaking and that "they" or "someone" was breaking in next door. While Wright radioed the dispatcher to say that they were on the scene, Hymon went behind the house. He heard a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The fleeing suspect, who was Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-feet-high chain link fence at the edge of the yard. With the aid of a flashlight, Hymon was able to see Garner's face and hands. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. While Garner was crouched at the base of the fence, Hymon called out "police, halt" and took a few steps toward him. Garner then began to climb over the fence. Convinced that if Garner made it over the fence he would elude capture, Hymon shot him. The bullet hit Garner in the back of the head. Garner was taken by ambulance to a hospital, where he died on the operating table. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the house were found on his body. A Tennessee statute provides that if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed Garner after being told to halt, Garner fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old and of small build. A state statute that permitted an officer to use all necessary means to effect an arrest if the suspect flees or forcibly resists is unconstitutional. The Court's decision effectively limits an officer's use of deadly force to instances where it is necessary to prevent the escape of an arrestee whom the officer has probable cause to believe poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to the officer or to others.

Defense of Others

At common law, one had the right to use reasonable force to prevent commission of a felony or to protect members of the household. The trend in American jurisdictions is to allow a person "to stand in the shoes of the victim" and to use such reasonable force as is necessary to defend anyone, irrespective of relationship, from harm.

Drug Testing of Student Athletes

At least three states - Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey - allow for random drug testing of school and college athletes. These policies were implemented after many doping scandals . One student in Texas, Taylor Hooton (17), committed suicide in 2003 by hanging. His doctor suggested that Taylor was suffering from depression due to the discontinuance of anabolic steroids. Some studies suggest drug testing does not reduce the use of drugs. Schools with and without drug testing had similar drug and alcohol consumption rates. Studies also suggest that between 500,000 and 1 million high school students are using performance-enhancing drugs.

Statute of limitations

Common law placed no time limits on prosecution, but the federal government and all states legislatively prescribe certain time limits for prosecution of most offenses. Seldom are there time limits on prosecution for murder and other extremely serious offenses.

Actual authority (objective) third-party consent

Only someone who in fact has the legal authority to consent for someone else.

panhandling

Begging for money in public; regulated by government

civil contempt

Being held in contempt of court pending the performance of some court-ordered act.

curfew ordinances

Ordinances typically requiring minors to be off the streets by a certain time of night.

Hudson v. Michigan*

Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possesion in state court after police found cocaine and a gun in his home. The police had a search warrant, but failed to follow the Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" rule which requires police officers to wait 20-30 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence before they enter the home. The trial judge ruled that the evidence found in the home could therefore not be used, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed based on two Michigan Supreme Court cases that created an exception to the supression of evidence when the evidence in question would have innevitably been found. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that evidence need not be excluded when police violate the "knock-and-announce" rule. The opinion by Justice Scalia reaffirmed the validity of both the knock-and-announce rule and the "exclusionary rule" for evidence obtained by police in most cases of Fourth Amendment violation. However, the majority held that the exclusionary rule could not be invoked for evidence obtained after a knock-and-announce violation, because the interests violated by the abrupt entry of the police "have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence." Justice Scalia wrote that the knock-and-announce rule was meant to prevent violence, property-damage, and impositions on privacy, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they have a valid warrant. The Court also found that the social costs of the exclusionary rule as applied to the knock-and-announce rule outweighed any possible "deterrence benefits," and that alternative measures such as civil suits and internal police discipline could adequately deter violations. The dissent noted the Court's long history of upholding the exclusionary rule and also expressed doubt that knock-and-announce violations could be deterred without excluding the evidence obtained from the searches.

City of Chicago v. Morales

Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance passed in 1992 by Chicago's City Council. It prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. If a cop sees this, he/she will ask the people to leave. A violation of the ordinance arises when anyone does not promptly obey a dispersal order. In 1993, Jesus Morales was arrested and found guilty under the ordinance for loitering in a Chicago neighborhood after he ignored police orders to leave. Illinois Supreme Court held that the ordinance violated due process of law in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties. Supreme Court: YES Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and provided law enforcement officials too much discretion to decide what activities constitute loitering. The ordinance's definition of loitering as "to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose" does not give people adequate notice of what is prohibited and what is permitted, even if a person does not violate the law until he refuses to disperse. The public really would have no clue about the conduct the ordinance prohibits. If the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty.

Consent Searches

Consent to a search must be truly voluntary and involve more than mere acquiescence to the authority of the police. Courts have said that police may not search a home when one resident invites them in but another refuses to grant access. In 1990 the Supreme Court shifted the focus from the dominion and control of the third party to the police officer's subjective belief that the third party has the authority to grant consent to a search of the premises. The problem of consent is especially acute in situations where several persons share a single dwelling, as is common among college students.

USA PATRIOT Act

Controversial act of Congress enacted in 2001 to strengthen the federal government's efforts to combat terrorism.

Eighth Amendment

Cruel and unusual punishment

Kyllo v. U.S.

Department of the Interior agent, suspicious that Danny Kyllo was growing marijuana, used a thermal-imaging device to scan his triplex. The imaging was to be used to determine if the amount of heat emanating from the home was consistent with the high-intensity lamps typically used for indoor marijuana growth. Subsequently, the imaging revealed that relatively hot areas existed, compared to the rest of the home. Based on informants, utility bills, and the thermal imaging, a federal magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Kyllo's home. The search unveiled growing marijuana. After Kyllo was indicted on a federal drug charge, he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home and then entered a conditional guilty plea. Ultimately affirming, the Court of Appeals held that Kyllo had shown no subjective expectation of privacy because he had made no attempt to conceal the heat escaping from his home, and even if he had, there was no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because the imager "did not expose any intimate details of Kyllo's life," only "amorphous 'hot spots' on the roof and exterior wall." The Court held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." The Court left it up to the lower court to determine whether, without the evidence provided by the thermal imaging, was there probable cause to issue a search warrant.

Subjective privacy prong

Does the person have a personal expectation of privacy?

Mapp v. Ohio

Dollree Mapp was convicted of illegal possession of pornography. The police went to her house because of information that a person who was wanted for questioning in a recent bombing was hiding there and there was a lot of paraphernalia about the bombing also hidden in the home. Miss Mapp demanded to see a search warrant before she let the police in. An officer held up a piece of paper and said it was a search warrant. The police grabbed Mss Mapp, handcuffed her and put her in the bedroom. The police searched drawers, closets and suitcases. During the course of the search the officers found pornography. At the trial the officers could not produce a search warrant. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) The Court declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

Defense of Habitation

English common law permitted the use of deadly force against an intruder into one's home. Even though a householder may be justified in using deadly force, he or she would not be justified in taking a life to repel a mere trespass.

Common law and criminal procedure

English subjects, and later, American colonists were subjected to the abuse of the "general warrant" that authorized searches of unspecified persons and places. It was not until 1766 that the English Parliament declared general warrants invalid.

Electronic Surveillance

Federal law prohibits interception of electronic communications without a court order unless one party to the conversation consents. Before a court may issue a wiretap order, it must find probable cause to believe the subject of the wiretap has committed or is committing one of a series of enumerated crimes (e.g., narcotics violations, mail fraud, interstate transportation of stolen vehicles). Wiretap orders usually permit surveillance by the police for a thirty-day period, and when the period expires, transcripts of the recordings must be delivered to the judge who ordered the wiretap. They are then sealed under the judge's direction. Critics argue that wiretapping is too drastic an invasion of personal privacy, but law enforcement agencies believe it to be an essential tool in the war against crime.

Gun-Free School Zone Act

Federal statute making it a crime "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." This law was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995).

Why should we have a statute of limitations?

First, people should not be under a threat of prosecution for a long period of time, and, second, that after an undue period of time evidence may become stale and memories uncertain thereby causing evidence to be unreliable.

First Amendment

Freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly

Adderley v. Florida*

Harriet Louise Adderley assembled with about 200 others in a private jail driveway to protest the arrests of fellow students and the state and local policies of racial segregation which included segregation in jails. Adderley was convicted (with about 30 others) in a Florida court on a charge of "trespass with a malicious and mischievous intent" for their refusal to leave the driveway when requested to do so. Supreme Court No constitutional violations in this case (1st Amendment). Why not? The sheriff acted to maintain access to the jail (driveway is for vehicles providing service to the jail) and not because he "objected to what was being sung . . . or disagreed with the objectives of the protest." So there were no First Amendment violations. Supreme Court Justice Black concluded that the state does have the power to control its own property for lawful, nondiscriminatory purposes

What did Edward Snowden reveal?*

His files reveal a number of mass-surveillance programs undertaken by the NSA and GCHQ. The agencies are able to access information stored by major US technology companies, often without individual warrants, as well as mass-intercepting data from the fiber-optic cables which make up the backbone of global phone and internet networks. His revelations have raised concerns about growing domestic surveillance, the scale of global monitoring, trustworthiness of the technology sector, whether the agencies can keep their information secure, and the quality of the laws and oversight keeping the agencies in check.

Michigan v. Sitz*

In 1986, the Michigan State Police Department created a sobriety checkpoint program aimed at reducing drunk driving within the state. The program included guidelines governing the location of roadblocks and the amount of publicity to be given to the operation. Before the first roadblock went into effect, Rick Sitz, a licensed Michigan driver, challenged the checkpoints and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Sitz was victorious in the Michigan lower courts. Did the drunk driving checkpoints violate motorists' privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment? The Supreme Court held that the roadblocks did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court noted "no one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the States' interest in eradicating it." The Court then found that "the weight bearing on the other scale--the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints--is slight." The Court also found that empirical evidence supported the effectiveness of the program. Sobriety checkpoints are acceptable.

People v. Lovercamp

In reversing Lovercamp's conviction, the appellate court stated that a limited defense to a charge of escape is available if the following conditions exist: The prisoner is faced with a specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future; There is no time for a complaint to the authorities or there exists a history of futile complaints which make any result from such complaints illusory; There is no time or opportunity to resort to the courts; There is no evidence of force or violence used toward prison personnel or other "innocent" persons in the escape; and Prisoner immediately reports to the proper authorities when he/she has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat.

Objective privacy prong

Is the subjective expectation of privacy reasonable?

Terry v. Ohio*

John Terry and Richard Chilton were observed by a plain-clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. To provide a little bit more details - Officer McFadden has been a cop for 39 years. He is patrolling an area in Cleveland and he sees to men continuously walk up and down the same street, stopping briefly before a store. This occurred for 10 to 12 minutes. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. (Two of the three have weapons.) Defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. The Court ruled that officers should be permitted to pat-down for weapons to protect himself or herself or others nearby. OFFICERS MUST BE ALLOWED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES. For a stop, officer must have REASONABLE SUSPICION or must be lead to suspect that a crime is taking place. How do they gain this knowledge? Direct information Hearsay (Anonymous tips)

resisting arrest (common law)

Made a distinction between resisting a lawful and an unlawful arrest. It did not permit resistance of a lawful arrest, but because the consequences of an arrest were so harsh and could result in lengthy incarceration before trial under onerous conditions, it did permit forcible resistance to an unlawful arrest.

Escape

Most state statutes: a person commits the offense of escape if he or she escapes from custody when he or she is: (1) under arrest for, charged with, or convicted of an offense (2) in custody pursuant to a lawful order of court. *The key is the prisoner's departure from lawful custody. Lawful custody is generally presumed once the prosecutor establishes that the escapee was under arrest or confined to an institution such as a jail, prison, or reformatory

the Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, renewed in 2012

NSA mass-surveillance is authorized; It allows for the collection of communications, without a warrant, where at least one end of the communication is a non-US person.

sports bribery

Offering anything of value to a participant or official in an amateur or professional athletic contest to vary his or her performance.

commercial bribery

Offering, soliciting, or accepting a benefit or consideration in respect to a business or professional matter in violation of a person's duty of fidelity.

Battered women's syndrome

Pattern of psychological and behavioral symptom of women living with males in a battering relationship; . Some jurisdictions now permit a female in that situation who is charged with assaulting or killing a man who has battered her to plead self-defense even though she did not face immediate harm.

Getting a search warrant?

Police need probable cause to get a search warrant. Probable cause, exists where prudent and cautious police officers have trustworthy information that leads them to believe that evidence of crime may be obtained through a particular search. Under normal circumstances police who have probable cause must apply to a judge or magistrate for a search warrant. They make an affidavit attesting to certain facts that give rise to probable cause. Police may have first-hand information, or their information may come from confidential informants, provided the "totality of circumstances" convinces the judge or magistrate that the informant's tip is credible and reliable. In some states, statutes now allow police to complete affidavits by use of a telephone.

U.S. v. Leon

Police obtained search warrant and seized drugs. The probable cause for the search was based on an informant. The exclusionary rule requires that evidence illegally seized must be excluded from criminal trials. Leon was the target of police surveillance based on an anonymous informant's tip. The police applied to a judge for a search warrant of Leon's home based on the evidence from their surveillance. A judge issued the warrant and the police recovered large quantities of illegal drugs. Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws. A judge concluded that the affidavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial. But is there a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule? Yes, there is such an exception. Evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial. The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct, not punish the errors of judges. There is no evidence that judges are going to ignore the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures so the exclusionary rule is not really going to apply to them or deter them. However, the officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the warrant is properly issued.

Fourteenth Amendment

Prohibits states from denying due process and equal protection of law to persons within their jurisdictions and provides Congress legislative power to enforce these prohibitions.

Where does the 4th Amendment apply?

Protection is afforded to a citizen's dwelling and the "curtilage," (the space surrounding a house). Although the Fourth Amendment refers to "houses" its protections have been extended to stores, offices, and places of business, except as to those areas of commercial properties that carry an implied invitation for the public to enter. Beyond the curtilage, private lands are considered to be "open fields" and are not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.

When does the 4th Amendment apply?

Protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures performed by police and other government agents. It does not afford protection against searches conducted by private individuals. It does the Fourth Amendment apply to property that has been abandoned.

criminal contempt

Punishment imposed by a judge against a person who violates a court order or otherwise intentionally interferes with the administration of the court.

criminal responsibility

Refers to the set of doctrines under which individuals are held accountable for criminal conduct.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible

Refusal of Medical Treatment Parents may refuse treatment for themselves, but not for their children. Philadelphia case 2009 - 2 year old Kent Schiable died from pnemonia when parents refused medical treatment 2013 - 7 month old Brandon Schiable died from pnemonia and dehydration

Fifth Amendment

Right against self-incrimination

Second Amendment

Right to keep and bear arms

transactional immunity

Some states grant a broader form of immunity which insulates the witness from prosecution for any activity mentioned in the witness's testimony.

Apparent authority (subjective) third-party consent

Someone who law enforcement officers reasonably believe have the right or authority to consent.

GCHQ

Stands for Government Communications Headquarters and is the UK's answer to NSA; It is permitted to spy in the interests of national security, preventing serious crime, or defending the UK's economic interests.

Exceptions to the Probable Cause Requirement

Stop and frisk (investigatory detention). School searches. In these and other special needs situations, the standard is reasonable suspicion. Drug testing and vehicle checkpoints may be valid in the absence of reasonable suspicion, depending on other factors.

Rochin v. California

Supreme Court said that police procedures that "shock the conscience" are violations of due process even if they do not violate the Fourth Amendment. Having "some information" that petitioner was selling narcotics, three state officers entered his home and forced their way into the bedroom occupied by him, his mother, brothers, sisters and his common law wife. The outside door to the home was unlocked so police entered. When asked about two capsules lying on a bedside table, petitioner put them in his mouth. After an unsuccessful struggle to extract them by force, the officers took petitioner to a hospital, where an emetic was forced into his stomach against his will. This "stomach pumping" produced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules, which proved to contain morphine. Rochin was brought to trial before a California Superior Court on the charge of possessing "a preparation of morphine." These capsules were admitted in evidence over his objection and he was convicted in a state court of violating a state law forbidding possession of morphine. Questions posed to the court: The Rule of Law excludes COERCED confessions from evidence. Should this count since what was coerced from his mouth were real objects? Does this violate DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LAW? Ruling: The conviction is reversed, because it was obtained by methods that violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Court ruled that the way this conviction was obtained "shocks the conscience" including the struggle to open Rochin's mouth and the forcible extraction of the contents of his stomach. The conviction was obtained by methods that offend the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old; she was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? NO. Court abandoned its requirement that searches be conducted only when a "probable cause" exists that an individual has violated the law. The Court used a less strict standard of "reasonableness" to conclude that the search did not violate the Constitution. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T.L.O. may have been carrying drugs, thus, justifying a more thorough search of the purse. The 4th Amendment does apply to school searches (no unreasonable searches or seizures by school officials.) The Court ruled that this particular search was reasonable. School officials do not need to get search warrants and they do not need probable cause. School officials only need reasonable suspicion. Searches are to be judged by a reasonableness standard and are not subject to the requirement of probable cause.

Edwards v. South Carolina*

The 187 petitioners in this case (all African American) organized a march to the South Carolina State House grounds. Once there a small groups of fifteen would protest the policies of segregation in their state. The march was peaceful, did not block pedestrian or car traffic. It was also done on public property. Police ordered the group to leave. The protesters refused and sang religious and patriotic songs. They were arrested and later convicted on a charge of breach of the peace. Charges of disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly are subject to attack under the First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of assembly. Supreme Court Ruling: Arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers. The evidence used to prosecute the marchers did not even remotely prove that their actions were violent. Marchers were simply exercising First Amendment rights "and a state cannot "make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views" as South Carolina attempted to do here.

Double jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction or acquittal. The Double Jeopardy Clause has also been made applicable to the states by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, although state constitutions contain similar provisions. The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits successive prosecutions or multiple punishments for the same offense.

School searches

The Supreme Court has said that students in public schools do not "shed their constitutional rights ... at the schoolhouse gate." On this premise, the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment protects children in the public schools from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Immunity

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects defendants against compulsory self-incrimination, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that this is applicable to state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment. A witness who testifies after validly invoking the Fifth Amendment must be granted "use immunity," which means that the testimony given by the witness cannot be used against the witness in a criminal proceeding.

Defenses Based on Constitutional and Statutory Authority

The U.S. Constitution is the basis for a defendant asserting immunity from prosecution in certain instances and for defending on the ground that the crime charged constitutes double jeopardy. State constitutions contain similar provisions. In addition, the federal government and all state legislatures have enacted statutes that prescribe time limits on the prosecution of most crimes.

perjury

The crime of making a material false statement under oath.

Treason

The crime of making war against one's own government or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

bribery

The crime of offering, giving, requesting, soliciting, or receiving something of value to influence a decision of a public official.

subornation of perjury

The crime of procuring someone to lie under oath.

Airport Searches

There is no 4th Amendment problem with appropriate security measures at airports. Consider the magnitude of the public safety interest involved. Travelers are put on notice that "all bags are subject to search." Airport travelers have reduced expectations of privacy.

Exclusionary rule

Throwing out illegally obtained evidence in the case against the defendant

Defenses Asserting Excuse or Justification

Types: Duress, Necessity, Consent, Mistake of fact, Mistake of law; alibi

Defenses Asserting Lack of Capacity to Commit a Crime*

actus reus but denies criminal responsibility for that act; lacked the mental capacity to form the requisite criminal intent because of infancy, intoxication, insanity, or automatism ""

escape (common law)

Under the common law, one who departed from lawful custody committed the crime of escape. Where the prisoner used force, the offense came to be known as prison break. One who used force to free another from lawful custody was guilty of the offense of rescue.

Subjective view

Under this view one who pleads entrapment admits the offense and the fact-finder must then determine whether the defendant committed the crime because of predisposition or whether it occurred because of an improper inducement committed by the police. The majority of federal and state courts have followed the subjective view.

Inventory Searches of Impounded Automobiles

When conducted according to standard police procedures, an inventory search of a vehicle is regarded as an administrative search not subject to ordinary Fourth Amendment requirements. Inventory searches are justified by the need to protect the owner's property and to protect the police from claims of lost property and potential dangers lurking inside closed automobiles.

Weeks v. United States

While Fremont Weeks was at work the police broke into his house without a search warrant. They then arrested him at work. He was charged with illegal gambling. Weeks only applies to: Federal law enforcement. The states could do whatever they wanted. Only applied to papers.

Nix v. Williams

Williams was suspected of murdering a 10 year old. State law enforcement officials engaged in a massive search for the child's body. During the search, after responding to an officer's appeal for assistance, Williams made statements to the police (without an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to the child's body. The defendant's Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest. Should evidence resulting in an arrest be excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained? NO. The Court relied on the "inevitable discovery doctrine," as it held that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the child's body as evidence since it was clear that the volunteer search teams would have discovered the body even absent Williams's statements. The other search party was only about 2 miles from where the body was.

THE TRESPASS DOCTRINE

a search only included when an officer entered a protected place.

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a school zone, regardless of whether the school is in session.

M'Naghten Rule

a defendant who does not know right from wrong may be found not guilty because of insanity. Based solely on cognition and ignoring a person's emotions

Mistake of Law

a defendant's honest but mistaken view of the law may be accepted as a defense.

Objective view

a judge, not the jury, determines whether the police methods were so improper as to constitute entrapment, hence the defendant's predisposition to commit the crime is irrelevant.

"Good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule

allows the government to use evidence obtained from searches based on unlawful search warrants if officers honestly and reasonably believe the warrant was lawful.

Fourth Amendment

amendment that protects the rights of people from unreasonable search and seizure.

1994 Crime Bill

banned the manufacture, transfer, or possession of firearms classified as "assault weapons."

Defense of Property

common law allowed a person to use reasonable, but not deadly, force to protect property. Today, the use of force to protect a person's property is often defined by statute.

To what extent is a person permitted to use force to defend property?

common law allowed use of reasonable, but not deadly, force to protect that property. today in the absence of the felonious use of force by an aggressor, a person must not inflict deadly harm simply for the protection or recapture of property; The rationale is that the law places higher value on preserving the life of the wrongdoer than on protection of someone's property.

infancy

common law: under 7 incapable of a criminal act, 7 to 14 incapacity existed by could be rebutted, over 14 treated as adult. 20th century developed juvenile court system, presumptions of age have been abandoned.

Use of force

deadly and nondeadly; The use of deadly force is generally restricted to situations involving a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury to a potential victim. Ordinarily a person who is defending against a criminal attack may use whatever nondeadly force that is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.

Alibi

does not deny that a crime was committed. Rather, the defendant denies the ability to have perpetrated such crime because of having been elsewhere at the time.

Chimel Rule

don't need warrant if search is subject to lawful arrest. Only the area under a suspect's immediate control can be searched, and this can be for evidence that has nothing to do with the cause for arrest.

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

evidence derived from other evidence that is obtained through an illegal search or seizure is itself inadmissible.

Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986

federal offense for a terrorist overseas to kill, attempt to kill, conspire to kill, or engage in physical violence with the intent to cause serious bodily injury to an American citizen.

Consent

if it negates an element of some crimes involving bodily contact, e.g., battery, forcible rape, it may be a defense.

Intoxication

involuntary intoxication excuses; COMMON LAW: voluntary intoxication did not excuse a person from criminal responsibility. Today most jurisdictions reject voluntary intoxication as a defense to general-intent crimes but consider it on the issue of whether the defendant was capable of forming a specific intent. Indiana Supreme Court (1992) decision allows a defendant to assert a defense of voluntary intoxication to any crime Florida Statute (1999) eliminates voluntary intoxication as a defense.

Necessity

justify "civil disobedience." These attempts have been unsuccessful in most instances, e.g., destruction of nuclear instrumentalities, abortion clinics, etc.

Mistake of fact

may be a defense as long as it negates the existence of the mental state essential to the crime charged; must be reasonable

ENTRAPMENT

not a defense under the common law, but it is now recognized as a defense in all federal and state jurisdictions. The defense is available only to persons entrapped by the police or someone associated with the government or police. It is entrapment if the officers "manufacture" crime by implanting criminal ideas into innocent minds.

obstruction of justice (modern law)*

obstruct federal officials in the execution court processes, to tamper with or retaliate against witnesses, informants and victims, or to obstruct criminal investigations. Additionally, federal law proscribes interference with governmental proceedings, court orders, jurors, and court officers. Another federal statute makes it a crime to willfully and knowingly obstruct passage of the mail.

Due Process Clause

prohibits the federal government from depriving persons within its jurisdiction of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. (5,14)

Two-witness rule

prosecution must prove the falsity of the defendant's statements either by two witnesses or by one witness and corroborating documents or circumstances.

section 215 of the Patriot Act

range of circumstances where the data of US people collected without a warrant could be stored, used and viewed.

Brady Bill

requires a five-working-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

PRIVACY DOCTRINE

the 4th Amendment protects persons, not places; replaced the trespass doctrine

NSA

the USA's intelligence agency. It has a strict focus on overseas, rather than domestic, surveillance; It is the phone and internet interception specialist of the USA, and is also responsible for code breaking.

Terrorism

the crime of inflicting terror on a population through the indiscriminate killing of people and destruction of property, often done with explosives.

Duress

the threat of harm was imminent and produced a well-grounded fear of death or serious bodily harm if the defendant did not commit the criminal act.