Criminal Justice Exam 3
Florida v. Riley (1989)
- a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace from 400 ft.
Aguilar v Texas (1964)
- if police use informants to develop probable cause to obtain a warrant, they must show why the informant should be believed and how the informant obtained his or her knowledge
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
- landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts -Established exclusionary rule
Warrant Requirements: Probable Cause
-"reasonable belief, based on fact, that a crime has been committed and that the person, place, or object to be searched and/or seized is linked to the crime with a reasonable degree of certainty"
State Courts
-50 state trial and appellate systems -Separate Courts: District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Other U.S. territories -17000 state courts process 90 million cases annually
which amendment to the U.S. constitution protects citizens against self-incrimination?
-5th Amendment
Katz v United States (1967)
-Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight- count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. -Yes. The 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.
New York v Class 1986
-Added to Plain view Doctrine- Officer MAY seize a gun protruding from under car seat (gun was seen when officer entered car to look for registration).
State and County Office
-Attorney General: Head State Prosecutor -District Attorney: Head County Prosecutor -Assistant DA: does the case work
How often are punishments imposed?
-Center for Public Integrity -investigated 11,000 cases of alleged misconduct over 30 yrs. -2000 cases appellate judges reduced sentences, reversed convictions, dismissed charges -44 cases, prosecutors were disciplined, only 2 disbarred
Rural Jurisdictions
-Chief Prosecutor: handles all the case work
Federal Courts: (2) Federal Appeals Court
-Circuit Court -Do not retry cases -review and examine federal and state cases for procedural error -12 Federal regional appellate courts; 1 appellate court for federal circuit -review cases for the US District State Appellate Courts -TX is 5th Circuit
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)
-Donald McLaughlin sued the county of Riverside and alleged that he had been in jail in Riverside county without prosecutors having explained to him the reasons why he was held. He requested an order from the judge that would required that the defendants and the county provide those who were arrested without warrants probable cause in a reasonable amount of time. -Holding: An individual arrested without a warrant must know the probable cause for their arrest from law enforcement within 48 hours.
Role of Defense Attorneys
-Dual Roles: advocate -officer of the court -must maintain legal/ethical integrity
Warrantless Searches and Arrests: Exceptions
-Exigent Circumstances: Emergency (Kirk v Louisiana 2002) -Hot Pursuit: delay would endanger their lives, lives of others, lead to escape of perpetrator -Danger of Escape -Threat to Evidence -Threat to Others: Hostage situations
Prosecutorial Structure
-Federal Office -US Attorney General: Administrator -US Attorneys: do the case work
Urban Jurisdictions
-Headed by a District Attorney -Separate offices to deal with specific types of crimes
Chimel v. California (1969)
-In Chimel, the Court held that police officers arresting a person at home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but police may search the area within immediate reach of the person.
1980s, Supreme Court limited the scope of the Exclusionary Rule? Independent Source Exception
-In US law, the independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. The doctrine applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality.
Jury Selection: Initial Jury Selection
-Jurors are selected randomly -voter registration, driver license, property tax -No specific qualifications -Disqualifying factors -Felons -Public officials -Medial doctors, attorneys -Initial pool of Jurors-Venire -"Jury Array" or "Jury Panel
What was the impact of the Miranda Ruling?
-Law enforcement concern -convictions -confessions
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
-Miranda v. Arizona, decided by the Supreme Court in 1966 by a 5-4 majority, held that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination applied to an individual in police custody or 'deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.' In order to safeguard this right, the Court ruled that prior to being questioned suspects have to be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say can be used against them in court, that they have the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if they cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed prior to questioning if they so desire. -Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and raping a woman
Kirk v Louisiana (2002)
-Police officers entered petitioner's home, where they arrested and searched him. The officers had neither an arrest warrant nor a search warrant. Without deciding whether exigent circumstances had been present, the Louisiana Court of Appeal concluded that the warrantless entry, arrest, and search did not violate the Fourth Amendment of the Federal Constitution because there had been probable cause to arrest petitioner. -established that exigent circumstances was a constitutional search
Types of Indigent Council: Contract System
-Provision of legal services to indigent defendants by private attorneys under contract to the state/county
When is the Miranda warning not necessary? Public Safety Doctrine
-Suspect can be questioned in the field without a Miranda warning if public safety is in jeopardy
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
-The Supreme Court decision holding that anyone accused of a felony where imprisonment may be imposed, however poor he or she might be, has the right to a lawyer. -according to Gideon v wainwright, indigent defendants have the right to a defense attorney when charged with a state felony crimes
Alabama v White (1990)
-The Supreme Court ruled that anonymous tip, even in the absence of other corroborating information about a suspect, could form the basis for an investigatory stop of the informant accurately predicted the future behavior of the suspect.
Jury Selection: Final Jury Selection
-The Voir Dire process begins -French for "to tell the truth" -Defense and prosecution question jurors -Jurors eliminated from the pool for two reasons: -Challenge for cause -Particular Juror bias discovered that precludes interests of justice -Unlimited challenges for cause -Peremptory challenge -Elimination for undisclosed reasons -Cannot be based on race/gender (sometimes religion) -Limited number based on state statue -What kinds of jurors are excluded? -Does the initial selection process create a group of unbiased, impartial jurors? - Disqualifying factors? - Representativeness? -Expansion of jury selection sources -Race? -Political positions? • Lockhart v McCree (1986): jurors who are against death penalty can be excluding from the juror selection
Definition of Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
-The doctrine states that if evidence that is seized is inadmissible in court, then secondary evidence that was obtained as result of the illegally seized evidence would also be inadmissible
State Courts are organized into three tiers
-Trial Courts -Appellate Courts -State Supreme Court
Weeks vs. Ohio (1914)
-Warrantless seizures was a violation of the 14 amendment; Set forth exclusionary rule at federal level
Trial Process: Four types of evidence
-Witness testimonies -Real evidence: weapons, blood samples -Documentary evidence: writings, hospital records, DNA profiling -Circumstantial evidence: a fact can be inferred
Definition of Curtilage
-Yard surrounding house, fenced in and secure portions of private property, "No Trespassing signs", and secured outbuildings -the fenced in and secure portions of private property surrounding a house that police cannot search without a warrant
Four components of the Miranda Warning
-You have the right to remain silent. -Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. -You have the right to an attorney. -If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you
Definition of a Search
-a government actor infringes on a person's reasonable expectation of privacy
The Prosecution and the Defense: Prosecutors
-a public official -elected or appointed -to represent the state's case against a person accused of committing a crime -DA, ADA -most powerful person in the CJ system -goes first and last before the jury before the jury is given instructions by the judge to deliberate the case
United States v Ross (1982)
-a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well. The appeals court had previously ruled that opening and searching the closed portable containers without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though the warrantless vehicle search was permissible due to existing precedent. -The Supreme Court, with a vote of 6 to 3, ruled that the warrantless search of the containers found during the search of the car was constitutional, falling within the existing precedent for a warrant-less search called the "automobile exception".
Functions of the Judge
-a wide variety of responsibilities -adjudicator: apply the law for the defendant rights -negotiator -administrator: deal with budget and staff
Police Action that is NOT considered a search
-abandoned property (California v. Greenwood 1988) -open fields -fly-overs
Interrogation
-after a suspect into custody, he is questioned about his involvement in the crime
Courts of General Jurisdiction
-aka Felony Courts -2000 of these courts process 5 million cases/year -more serious crimes -more serious civil suits -not restricted on punishments -organized in judicial districts or circuits -may handle appeals from lower courts -serve as appellate court for lower courts
Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (Trial Courts)
-aka Lower Courts -13-14000 of these courts (misdemeanors) -restricted on punishment -handle minor cases: civil suits -Specialty Courts: hear same type of cases over and over -Domestic Violence (DV) -Family court -juvenile court -most often accused of "assembly line justice"
Definition of Open Fields
-any unoccupied or undeveloped piece of land -park, public street, remote, unprotected land, and area on private property
Crimes committed in an officer's presence
-arrest followed by a search incident to a lawful search
When are Warrants Necessary?
-arrests and searches in private homes/on private property -arrests for minor offenses committed out of view of arresting officer -Misdemeanors -"in presence requirement"
Ethical Dilemmas
-attempting to discredit a truthful witness -calling a witness to the stand knowing he/she will lie -telling a defendant to commit perjury -knowing that a defendant is still actively involved in criminal behavior
Public v Private Attorneys: what are the benefits of the various systems?
-both have same conviction rates, but defendants tried by public are most likely to be incarcerated -in/out decision -length of sentence: shorter when tried by public attorney
Three types of Judicial Selection: Merit Selection (Missouri Plan)
-candidates are selected by a judicial nominating committee based on merit -the governor (or elected official) appoints a judge from these candidates -when the term runs out, the judge must run in a nonpartisan retention election
Appellate Courts
-court of appeals -do not retry courts: courts procedures for errors -Outcomes: 1) order a new trial, 2) release the defendant, 3) uphold the original verdict -every state has a least one state supreme court
Court Congestion and the Courtroom Workgroup
-court system: over loaded by the cases heard each year -state court systems handle approx. 100 million new cases/year -lack of resources, congested caseload, efficiency -courtroom workgroup
Types of Indigent Council: Assigned Council
-courts appoint a private attorney to take the case; based on a list of attorneys willing to take indigent cases
Types of Indigent Council: Public Defenders
-defense attorneys employed by the government to represent criminal defendants who cannot afford to pay for a lawyer
Prosecutorial Misconduct
-dismiss or charge cases based on extra-legal factors: race, age, class, sex, etc. -conceal evidence -influence juries: inadvertently mention evidence that was excluded or tainted
Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecutors
-do prosecutors have high or low levels of discretion -prosecutor decides: which cases should be brought to trial, which cases should be dismissed -prosecutor pursues the case -charges may be dropped later: victims don't want to corporate, witness credibility, evidence -plea bargaining
Fly-Overs
-don't need a warrant for a low level altitude search of private property -Oliver v. U.S. (1984) -Florida v. Riley (1989)
Political Implications: Prosecutors
-elected or appointed officials -party affiliation -voter constituency -pressures from communities and interest groups -prosecutorial decisions
Police and the Courts
-evidence collection for prosecution -U.S. Supreme court outlines rules governing police behavior -Law enforcement need to investigate -citizens' protection from illegal search and investigation
Plan View Searches
-evidence is in plain view (New York v Class 1986)
1980s, Supreme Court limited the scope of the Exclusionary Rule? Good Faith Exception
-exception to exclusionary rule, holding that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant can be introduced if the mistake was made in good faith (of all the parties involved had reason at the time to believe that the warrant was proper). -if an officer executes a bad warrant but believes the warrant to be legal, evidence discovered can be admissible in court under the exception to the exclusionary rule
1980s, Supreme Court limited the scope of the exclusionary Rule? Inevitable Discovery Exception
-exception to the exclusionary rule that holds that evidence unlawfully gathered need not be exempt from judicial proceedings if it is determined by the court that the evidence would have been found eventually by legal means
6th Amendment
-guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires a jury and guarantees the right to legal council, and also guarantees the accused the right to know the charges against him
Argersinger v Hamlin (1972)
-indigent defendants must be provided with attorneys when facing misdemeanor and petty charges that may result in incarceration
Function of the Defense Attorneys
-investigations -interview client, police, witnesses -negotiate with the prosecutor -prepare for trial -file appropriate motions -represent the defendant in trial -assist in sentencing decision -participate in the appeals process
Arrest Warrant
-issued by a judge -arrest particular individual
Search Warrant
-issued by a judge -directs officer to conduct search -specified premises -particular objects
Three types of Judicial Selection: Appointment
-judges are appointed by the governor -confirmed by state senate -avoid bias and job is safe
When does the Miranda Warning have to be given?
-must be given when a suspect is being arrested and in police custody
Vehicle Searches
-must have probable cause (US v Ross 1982) -Roadblock searches: border patrol has to be systematic -Searching drivers and passengers: officer safety -Pretext Stops: police stops a driver because suspicious of more serious crime but without probable cause so use pretext of minor traffic violation
Warrant Requirements: Particularity
-must state precisely where the search is to take place and what items are to be seized -designed to curtail abuse
Federal Courts: (3) US Supreme Court
-nations highest court -"court of last resort" -9 justices serve life terms; to get rid of bias -Presidential appointment -confirmed by congress -review about 250-300 cases/term -justices vote on the issue and a majority vote determines the case -decision must be honored by all lower courts
Sources of information for obtaining probable cause
-officer's firsthand knowledge -Informants (Agular v Tx 1964) -Anonymous Tips (Illinois v Gates 1983) -Telephone Tips (Alabama v White 1990)
Three types of Judicial Selection: Popular Election
-partisan or nonpartisan elections -8 partisan states and 20 nonpartisan states -voters will keep the judge on track, can vote the judge out of office -TX judges are selected by a partisan election
Terry v. Ohio (1968)
-police officer found a gun in the coat pocket of one of three men he frisked when their suspicious behavior convinced him that they were planning a robbery- Supreme court ruled that if a reasonably prudent police officer believes that her safety or that of others is endangered, she may make a reasonable search for weapons on the person, regardless of probable cause -"stop and frisk" searches were upheld in Terry v Ohio (1968)
Legal Arrests Occurs:
-police officer has probable cause and deprives the individual of freedom -Suspect believes that he is in the custody of the police
Warrantless Searches Justified: Stop and Frisk
-police officers who are suspicious of an individual, run their hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon -Two distinct components: -Stop: briefly detain a person to prevent a crime or gather information -Frisk: to protect the officer, can't be used to search for evidence
Political Factors
-private interest -media pressure
Punishing Prosecutors
-prosecutors cant be sued for their decisions -absolute immunity -can be punished by superiors and state bar association disciplinary boards: private reprimand, public reprimand, suspension of practice, permanent disbarment
Fourth Amendment
-protects against unreasonable searches and seizures -"Reasonable Clause" & "Warrants Clause"
Background Info: Courts and Judiciary
-provide a fair and just process -determine guilty or not guilty -ensure due process -decentralized -dual court system: state and federal
Warrant Requirements: Magistrate (Neutral and Detached Judge)
-provides objectivity -accountability to police decision making
Prosecutors have several options when presented with a case
-reject or dismiss the case -bring formal charges -divert the case
Prosecutorial Functions
-represent the state (public interest) -investigation -work with the police -determine the charge to bring against the accused: after plea, most powerful person in CJ System -review warrants -subpoena witnesses -engage in plea bargaining -provide sentencing recommendations
Federal Courts
-second tier of US court system -federal courts -Jurisdiction: cases involving federal statues, civil conflicts of individuals residing in separate states
Defining a Arrest
-seizure -when a police officer takes a person into custody -deprives a person of his/her freedom for having allegedly committing a criminal act
The Right to Council
-should indigent defendants (cant afford it) have the right to free council? -who should pay for it? -Gideon v Wainwright (1963): state courts must provide council to indigent defendants in felony cases -federal courts had already been providing council based on the sixth amendment -Argersinger v Hamlin (1972): extended provisions of free council to all cases when imprisonment is a possible outcome
Types of Indigent Council: Mixed System
-some states use both public defenders and some form of private council to account for case overload
factors that affect prosecutorial discretion
-systemic factors: backlog, want to get to the more serious crimes -Case factors: victim's attitude, suspect with criminal record, offender relation, cost
Illinois v Gates (1983)
-the Court eased the process of obtaining search warrants by developing a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine probable cause for issuing a search warrant; can use anonymous tips if police can prove that the informant has relevant/factual knowledge that a fair probability exists that evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place
California v. Greenwood (1988)
-the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.
Oliver v. United States (1984)
-the courts upheld that fences and NO Trespassing signs provide no reasonable expectation of privacy to owners of properties large enough to include areas that extend beyond curtilage (land around a home and the expectation that the homeowner will have some degree of privacy within that boundary) of houses or other buildings. -altitude of 1000ft.
Defense Attorneys
-the legal council for the defendant in a criminal case -responsible for representing the accused from arrest to final appeal
Definition of the Exclusionary Rule
-the principle that prohibits using illegally obtained evidence in a trial; all evidence obtained by illegal searches and seizures is inadmissible in court
Federal Courts: Three-tiered hierarchy of organization (1) District Courts
-try cases at federal level -"trial courts" on the federal system -Jurisdiction over federal law violations: civil rights abuses, kidnappings, interstate transportation of stolen vehicle, citizenship cases/alien rights -each state has at least one US District court -94 District courts
Whren v. United States (1996)
-unanimous United States Supreme Court decision[1] that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."[2] The case's Supreme Court syllabus states that the court held that "the temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective." In other words, it does not matter if the traffic stop was pretextual, so long as there was independent justification for the stop
Consent Searches
-voluntariness: citizen must give consent voluntarily, police are not required to notify citizen that they can say no when asked to search -Is this still voluntary? -Second party consent: can a person give consent for someone else? yes
Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
-warrantless search in conjunction legal arrest -Two Criteria: (1) search immediately after arrest, (2) area immediate control of suspect -Chimmel v California ( 1969) : protect police from danger ad secure evidence -if the arrest is invalid, the search and any evidence collected is inadmissible
What is the definition of a pretextual stop?
-when a officer stops a driver for a minor traffic violation because they are suspicious of a more serious crime but do not have probable cause
Trial Process: Motion for a directed verdict
o Defense attorney asks the judge to order the jury to return a verdict of not guilty o The judge must rule on the motion o If motion is sustained-trial is terminated
Trial Process: Presentation of Prosecutor's Evidence
o Prosecutor calls their witnesses to the stand for Direct Examination o The defense attorney can cross-examine the witness o Second round of direct/cross-examinations
Trial Process: Opening Statements
oThe prosecutor goes first -Introduces criminal charges -Outlines the facts of the case -Presents government's argument -Overview of evidence o Defense attorney follows o Initial summary of the case given to juries
