Criminal procedure CH7/8/9/10

Balancing Test

used by judges to resolve legal issues by balancing the interests in conflict and deciding which is of higher importance

eyewitness recall

witnesses are given hints, such as a time frame, and then asked to report what they observed

eyewitness recognition

witnesses are shown persons or objects and then asked to indicate whether they were involved in the crime

eyewitness retrospective self-reports

witnesses' in-court recollections.

Lanza v. New York (1962)

•A jail shares non of the attributes of the privacy of a home, automobile, office, or an hotel, and official surveillance has officially been the order of the day in prison" Conversations recorded in a jail visitor's room are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Miranda Bright Line Rules

"Per se rule" prevent police coercion while still allowing police pressure, the rule is that whenever police officers conduct a custodial interrogation, they have to give suspects these warnings: -You have the right to remain silent -Anything you say can and will be used against you in court -You have a right to an attorney -If you can not afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you

Ruffin v. Commonwealth

"The bill of rights is a declaration of general principles to govern a society of free men" prisoners are the "slave of the state"

Stein v. New York

"Unsympathetic criminals" judge Jackson states criminals was "convinced their dance was over and it was time to pay the fiddler"

3 reasons to support reduced expectation of privacy

-custody -consent -balancing

Special Needs Searches

-inventory searches -international boarder searches -airport searches -custody related searches -public college and university dormitory searches -employee workplace drug test -prenatal patient drug testing -public middle and high school drug testing -other special needs searches

Search without warrants or probable cause or objective basics

-prisoners and their cell phones -prison visitors and employees -prisoners released on parole -probationers who could be but aren't locked up -defendants detained before they're convicted

Courts have ruled that none of the following actions caused suspects to confess

-promises of leniency -promises of treatment -confronting the accused with other evidence of guilt -the interrogators appeal to the defendants emotions -false and misleading statements made by the interrogator

The most common circumstances courts consider in determining whether coercive state action caused people to confess include the following

-the location where the question took place -whether the suspect initiated the contact with law enforcement -whether the Miranda warnings were given -number of interrogators -length of the questioning -whether food, water, and toilet facilities were denied -whether the police used threats, promises, lies or tricks -whether the suspect was denied access to a lawyer -the suspects characteristics, such as age, gender, race, physical and mental conditions, education, drug problems, and experience with the criminal justice system

Retrieval errors

1) Errors and Omissions-failure to recall some details or to recognize a perpetrator 2)errors of commission-picking an innocent person in a photo array

Why do we throw good evidence out of court?

1) constitutional right 2)judicial integrity 3)Deterrence

Inbau three reasons why he supports justice Frankfurter

1) police can't solve crime unless guilty people confess or suspects give police information that can convict someone else who's guilty 2)criminals don't confess unless police catch them in the act or interrogate them in private 3)police have to use "less refined methods" when interrogating suspects than are "appropriate for transaction of ordinary, everyday affairs by and between law abiding citizens"

Psychologists rely on 2 principal Methods to study eyewitness identification

1)Archival research 2)experimental research

The U.S Supreme Court adopted 2 tests to see whether police questioning amount to interrogation:

1)The fifth amendment: functional equivalent of a question test 2)the sixth amendment: deliberately eliciting a response test

Psychologists are often highly skeptical of retrospective self reports, because they are highly malleable in response to even slight changes in context such as

1)The social desirability of the responses 2)the need to appear consistent 3)reinterpretation of the past based on new events

Why do innocent people confess? (Voluntary false confessions)

1)a desire for notoriety 2)a need for self punishment to remove guilty feelings 3)inability to separate reality from fantasy. 4)a desire to help and protect the real criminal

Three exceptions to fruit of the poisonous tree

1)attenuation 2)independent source 3)inevitably discovery

Reasonableness of inventory searches depends on satisfying two elements

1)balancing interests 2)objective basis

Suspects of wrongful convictions based on these innocent peoples false confessions stems from 2 sources

1)certain police interrogation techniques 2)jurors beliefs in the confessions

To claim successful that their fifth amendment right against self incrimination was violated the, defendants gave to prove three elements

1)compulsion...no person shall be compelled 2)incrimination...in any criminal case 3)testimony...to be a witness against himself

3 types of detention don't qualify as custody

1)detaining drivers and passengers in routine traffic stop(berkermer v Mcarty)1984) 2)requiring probationers to attend routine meeting with their probation officers(Minnesota v Murphy)1984 3)detaining person during the execution of search warrants(Michigan v summers)1981

The U.S Supreme Court has relied on three provisions in the U.S constitution to develop rules to control police interrogation and confessions

1)fourteenth amendment due process clause...no state shall deprive any person of life,liberty, or property without due process of law 2)sixth amendment right to counsel clause. In all criminal prosecutions, the assistance of counsel for his defense 3)fifth amendment self incrimination clause. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

The accuracy of witnesses first observation of strangers during a crime depends on 5 circumstances

1)length of time to observe the stranger 2)distractions during the observation 3)focus of the observation 4)stress on the witness during the observation 5)race of the witness and the stranger(Wells and Olsen 2003)

Why has Supreme Court interpreted interrogation broadly omg the right to counsel kicks in? Two reasons

1)once the proceedings begin all the power of the government is aimed at convicting defendants 2)at this stage technical knowledge of the law and its procedures become critical

Three empirical studies based on separate types of evidence reached the following conclusions

1)police always give the required Miranda warnings 2)suspects overwhelming waive their Maranda rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present to help them 3)police usually stop interrogating suspects who invoke their right to silence and or lawyer 4)police rarely use "overly coercive" tactics to get waivers 5) police rarely use "overly coercive" tactics to get confessions after waivers

Retrieval arises from 2 phenomena

1)recall 2) recognition

Few legislatures, courts, and police departments have implemented some reforms, here's three

1)reducing the length of time in custody and interrogation 2)eliminating police use of false information during interrogation 3)recording interrogations and confessions

The court created five more bright line rules for the interfering officer, prosecutors, and Judges. But police officers don't have to tell suspects about these rules

1)suspects can claim their right to remain silent at anytime. It at anytime they indicate in anyway they don't want to talk, the interrogation has to stop immediately 2)if before interrogation begins, suspects indicate in any manner they want a lawyer, interrogation can't start, if it has started already, it has to stop immediately 3)any statement obtained without a lawyer present puts a heavy burden on the prosecution to prove that this defendant waived two constitutional rights:the right against self incrimination and the right to lawyer. Neither silence or later confessions count as waiver 4)statements obtained in violation of the rules can't be admitted into evidence 5)exorcising the right against self incrimination can't be penalized. So prosecutors can't suggest or even hint at trial that the defendant refusal to talk is a sign of guilt

Witness within a few hours of the crime, in which the gun is the threat to public safety, the evidence of the threat comes in several forms including

1)the crime involved the gun 2)the victim reported the suspect had a gun 3)the officer saw the suspect ditch the gun during the pursuit 4)the officer saw gun paraphernalia, like an empty holster or ammunition

Drizin and Leo proved confessions were a false in 4 ways

1)the crime never happened 2)the defendant couldn't have committed the crime 3)the actual criminal is proven to have committed the crime 4)DNA evidence exonerated the defendant

Three of the five Manson reliability factors

1)view 2)attention 3)certainty

Because the vast majority of suspects in custody talk to officers without a lawyer insight, two indispensable fifth amendment question arise

1)what is the valid waiver against the right to self incrimination? 2)what is a voluntary confession?

People confess their guilt or make incriminating statements in 4 ways

1)when they incriminate themselves to friends and associates, who report it to officials, these incriminating statements and confessions can be used against those who make them 2) when defendants pleads guilty to crime they're charged with. Defendants who pleads guilty automatically gives up their rights against self incrimination. This is far and away the most common form of self incrimination in the criminal justice system 3)When convicted offenders incriminate themselves during the sentencing process. The main reason for this incrimination is because they want to demonstrate that they're sorry 4)When criminal suspects incriminate themselves after arrests. Making incriminating statements and confessing during police interrogation has generated the most controversy; and are our main focus in this chapter

When apprehended, police typically ask three questions specifically related to public safety, not to obtain evidence to arrest or prosecute

1)where's the gun?(if it's missing) 2)is the gun loaded? 3)are you carrying any other weapons?(1324)

Whether suspects are in custody depends on a case by case evaluation of the totality of circumstances surrounding the interrogation. These circumstances include:

1)whether officer had probable cause to arrest 2 whether officers intended to detain suspects 3) whether suspects believe their freedom was significantly restricted 4)whether the investigation had focused on the suspect 5)the language officer used to summon the suspects 6)the physical surrounding 7)the amount of evidence of guilt officers presented to suspects 8)how long suspects was detained 9)the amount and kinds of pressure officers uses to detain suspects

Three common situations in which courts are likely to admit show up identification

1)witness accidentally run into suspect, such as in courthouse corridors 2)witness identifies suspects during emergencies, such as when witness are hospitalized(Stovall v Denno) 3)witnesses identifies suspects when they're loose and pursued by police, such as when police cruise crime scenes with witnesses(McFaden v Cabana)

Law enforcement officers take inventory to satisfy 3 government interests that aren't directly connected to searching for evidence of a crime

1- to protect owners personal property while they, or their vehicle, and other personal containers, are in police custody 2-to protect law enforcement agencies against law suits for the loss, destruction, or theft of owners property 3-to protect law enforcement officers, detained suspects, and offenders from the dangers of bombs weapons and illegal drugs that might be hidden in owners property

3 justification support to analyze and support their balancing responsibilities

1-emergency or exigent circumstances that require immediate action 2-the Special relationship between the college/university and students 3-the college/universities duty to provide the appropriate environment in learning

4 common characteristics of special needs searches

1-they're directed at people generally. Not criminal suspects and defendants specifically 2-they can result in criminal prosecution and conviction 3-they don't require warrants or probable cause 4-their reasonableness depends on balancing special government needs against invasion of individual privacy

Confessions are involuntary only if the totality of circumstances proves two things

1. Officers engaged in coercive conduct during the interrogation. 2. The coercive conduct caused the suspect to make incriminating statements.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

A five member majority decided that statements contained in forensic lab reports created specifically as evidence to prove guilt in criminal trials are testimony that the sixth amendment guarantees defendants have the right to cross examination Luis Melendez-Diaz was arrested while making a cocaine sale in a parking lot in Massachusetts. At trial, bags of the cocaine alleged to have been distributed by Melendez-Diaz were introduced into evidence along with drug analysis certificates prepared by the lab technician who analyzed the drugs and identified them as cocaine. A jury convicted Melendez-Diaz of distributing and trafficking cocaine in violation of Massachusetts law. Melendez-Diaz appealed, arguing that the State's introduction of the drug analysis certificates violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him under the Court's ruling in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford had held that so-called "testimonial" evidence cannot be introduced at trial unless the defendant has a chance to cross-examine the witness providing the evidence. Melendez-Diaz characterized the lab analysis as testimonial and argued that Crawford required the lab technician to testify on the results. The State argued that Massachusetts had previously held, in Commonwealth v. Verde, that lab reports were not testimonial. Is a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution "testimonial" evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington? Yes. The Supreme Court held that a state forensic analyst's lab report that is prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

US v. Brown 2011

Affidavit of false evidence in reckless disregard of the truth requires suppression of DNA evidence

New York v. Benjamin Quarles

After receiving the description of Quarles, an alleged assailant, a police officer entered a supermarket, spotted him, and ordered him to stop. Quarles stopped and was frisked by the officer. Upon detecting an empty shoulder holster, the officer asked Quarles where his gun was. Quarles responded. The officer then formally arrested Quarles and read him his Miranda rights. "public safety" exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice to Quarles, his failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.

Mandatory video requirement-4 states

Alaska, Illinois, Maine and Minnesota

Escebedo v. Illinois

Attorney incrimination - Right to counsel during police interrogation

State v. Bowe

Coercive conduct of basketball coach rendered players confession inadmissible

Voluntary test of self incrimination

Confessions and other incriminating statements violate due process of the totality of circumstances surrounding the statements show that suspects didn't confess voluntarily. In 1966 a combination of 3 factors created one of the most famous decision in U. S constitution History 1)uneasiness against tactics used against suspects in the intimidating atmosphere of the police station 2)dissatisfaction with the vagueness of the totality of circumstances approach 3)impatient with the case by case approach to deciding whether confessions were voluntarily given ave gotten

Orozco v. Texas

Court held that police coming into Orozco house at 4am in the morning to question him put him in custody because he was deprived of liberty in a significant way.

Vernonia School District v. Acton

Court ruled that random drug testing of all students voluntarily participating in the school district athletic programs was reasonable According to school policy all students who wished to participate in school sports had to sign a form consenting to urinalysis for drugs.(parental consent was also required)

State v. Raines

Courts have defined the testing and storing of DNA as a fourth amendment search and seizure

Internal and external department review

Disciplining the officer outside the judicial system

Weeks v. US

Established exclusionary rule, evidence gotten without a warrant isn't admissible in a federal court

Manson v. Brathwaite

Established reliability test of eyewitness evidence 1) allows the admission of identification evidence based on unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures 2) unless the defendant can prove that the suggestive procedure creates a very substantial likelihood of misidentification. In the courts words "reliability is a linchpin"

Independence source exception

Even if officers break the law, their lawbreaking causes the seizure of evidence, the evidence is admissible in court

Trial Proceedings - Cross-Examination

Exclusionary rule applies to only one part of case proceedings, the governments case in chief at criminal trial, case in chief means the case presented by each party in a trial

According to the accusatory system rationale

Forced confessions violate due process even if they are true since the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

Colorado v Burtine

Fourth amendment doesn't require the least intrusive means to secure property of seized vehicles, but they have to follow standardized criteria

Goss v. Lopez

Gave students facing suspension due process rights in schools

the meaning of "witness against himself"

Government can't force you to give testimony against yourself. The government can compel you to say particular words that can help a witness pick you out.

case in chief

Government presents its evidence to prove defendants guilt

Judicial integrity (moral) justification

Honor and honesty from the court forbid them from participating in unconstitutional conduct

In loco parentis(in the place of the parents)-Latin

In loco parentis(in the place of the parents)-Latin Teachers, principals and other school official substitute for parents while kids are in school

Island v. Innis

Innis was arrested for murdering and robbing a cab driver with a sawed off shot gun. Court adopted functional equivalent of a a question test •Cope put him in a cop car to take him to the station, Innis said he wanted to see his lawyer, on the way to the station cops discussed amongst themselves that their was a handicapped school nearby and they wanted to find the gun. Innis showed them where the gun was, he was convicted and found guilty and overturned and found innocent because of "subtle coercion"

Internalize false confession

Innocent but vulnerable suspects subjected to highly invasive interrogation tactics come in not to get the situation over with but believe they actually committed the crime

fundamental attribution error

Jurors may credit confessions obtained during high pressure interrogation methods because of fundamental attribution error

compliant false confessions

Mere acts of a public compliance by a suspect who comes to believe that the short term benefits of confession outweighs the long term costs

routine procedures

Objective basis that satisfies the reasonable objective basis

nontrial proceedings (collateral use) exception

Proceedings not directly related to the prosecutions case in chief at trial

Criminal Law

Prosecuting individual officer in criminal court

implied waiver test(North Carolina v Butler)-lower courts and later Supreme Court

Prosecution has to prove that the totality of circumstances in each case adds up to proof that before suspects talked they knew they had the right to remain silent and knew they were giving up the right

experimental research

Researchers create crimes that unsuspecting people witness-video taped or live stage)

Brewer v. Williams

Robert Williams escaped from a mental hospital and lived at the Des Moines YMCA. Soon thereafter, a 10-year-old girl disappeared from the YMCA while at her brother's wrestling match. A boy in the parking lot saw Williams carrying a large bundle to his car with two "skinny and white" legs in it. The next day, police found Williams' abandoned car about 160 miles east of Des Moines. Williams soon turned himself in to police in Davenport, Iowa. Williams said he would tell police the whole story once he saw his lawyer in Des Moines. Williams spoke with a local attorney and reiterated his intention to confess when he saw his attorney in Des Moines. Davenport police promised not to question Williams during the drive to Des Moines. During the drive, however, the detective, knowing that Williams was deeply religious, told Williams that the girl's family wanted to give her a "Christian burial" and suggested that they stop to locate the body. As a result of the officer's pointed statements, Williams made incriminating statements and ultimately led police to the girl's body. He was indicted for first-degree murder. At trial, Williams moved to suppress all evidence relating to the car ride conversation, arguing that the questioning violated Williams' Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The judge denied the motion, and a jury found Williams guilty. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Williams petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The court granted the writ, finding that speaking to Williams during the drive violated his right to counsel, and the evidence in question was wrongly admitted at trial. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

U.S. v. Ramsey

Searches at international boarders are reasonable without warrants. This is known as the border search acception. The special needs for border searches is to control who and what comes out of the country

Civil law

Suing the office, the government, or the police department in criminal court

Berkermer, sheriff of Franklin County v. McCarty

Supreme Court held that brief questioning during a traffic stop was not a custodial interrogation. •On March 31, 1980, Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper C.J. Williams observed Richard McCarty's vehicle weaving back and forth on Interstate Highway 270. He followed the car, pulled McCarty over, and asked him to exit the vehicle. Williams noticed that McCarty had trouble standing, and thus determined that he would charge McCarty with a traffic offense and that McCarty was no longer free to leave the scene. McCarty failed a balancing test. Williams then asked McCarty whether he had been using intoxicants, and McCarty responded that he had consumed two beers and smoked several joints of marijuana a short time before. Williams placed McCarty under arrest. At the county jail, however, a breathalyzer test did not detect any alcohol in McCarty's system. Williams resumed questioning McCarty, asking him if he was under the influence of alcohol and whether the marijuana had been treated with any chemicals. Williams responded, "I guess, barely," to the first question, but denied that the marijuana he smoked had been treated. At no point did Williams or any other officer tell McCarty that he had a right to remain silent, to consult with an attorney, or to have an attorney appointed for him if he could not afford one. McCarty was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, a first-degree misdemeanor under Ohio law punishable by fine or imprisonment for up to six months. McCarty moved to exclude the incriminating statements he made to Trooper Williams both on the scene of the arrest and in jail, on the grounds that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights prior to interrogation. The trial court denied the motion; McCarty pled 'no contest' and was found guilty. On appeal, the Franklin County Court of Appeals held that the Miranda rule does not apply to misdemeanors, relying on a prior decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed McCarty's appeal for failing to present a substantial constitutional question. The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed McCarty's writ of habeas corpus, but the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit reversed. It held that Miranda warnings must be given to all individuals accused of misdemeanor traffic offenses prior to custodial interrogation, but did not clearly apply this rule to McCarty's statements made at the scene of his arrest. •1. Did the highway patrol err in failing to give a Miranda warning to McCarty before he made incriminating statements at the station house? 2. Did the Ohio State Highway Patrol err in failing to give a Miranda warning to McCarty when he was detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop and under suspicion for the misdemeanor of driving under the influence? •Yes and no. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Thurgood Marshall, the Court held that arrestees in custody and under suspicion for a misdemeanor traffic offense must be informed of their constitutional rights or subsequent statements are inadmissible. Justice Marshall rejected Berkemer's argument that the Court should carve out an exception to the Miranda rule for lesser offenses.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Supreme Court held that partially strip searching an eighth grader was unreasonable, but granted individual school official qualified immunity from civil liability for the illegal search Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy. Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court for the District of Arizona. She alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On the initial appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. However, on rehearing before the entire court, the court of appeals held that Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. It reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably related to the circumstances. 1) Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy? 2) Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983? Sometimes, fact dependent. No. The Supreme Court held that Savanna's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers.

State v. Ellis

The Ohio court of appeals revered and remanded Ellis conviction and five year sentence for trafficking marijuana, because the evidence was seized in an unreasonable search by campus police Was the Dormitory Room Search Reasonable? No Are R.A.'s agent's of the state? No Stated that there must be more to show agency By entering the room, the campus police infringed upon the reasonable expectation of privacy To enter a room they needed: -Warrant, which they did not have -Established an exception to the warrant

Ferguson and others v. City of Charleston and others (2001)

The Supreme Court held that forced drug testing and arrests of pregnant patients who tested positive for drug use violated their fourth amendment rights After an increase in the use of cocaine by patients receiving prenatal care, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) started to cooperate with Charleston to formulate a policy to prosecute mothers whose children tested positive for drugs at birth. MUSC obstetrical patients were arrested after testing positive for cocaine. They filed suit challenging the policy's validity on the theory that warrantless and nonconsensual drug tests conducted for criminal investigatory purposes were unconstitutional searches. Among the District Court's actions was an instruction to the jury to find for the patients unless they had consented to such searches. The jury found in favor of the city. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that the searches were reasonable, reasoning that special needs may, in certain exceptional circumstances, justify a search policy designed to serve non-law-enforcement ends. Is a state hospital's performance of a diagnostic test to obtain evidence of a patient's criminal conduct for law enforcement purposes an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the patient has not consented to the procedure? Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the diagnostic tests constituted an unreasonable search if the patient has not consented to the procedure. The interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter pregnant women from using cocaine cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.

Hudson v. Michigan (2006)

The Supreme court held that 5-4 failure to comply with the knock and announce rule never violates the exclusionary rule if officers have a valid warrant to search the home Booker T. Hudson was convicted of drug and firearm possession 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 suppression of evidence when the evidence in question would have inevitably been found. Does the general rule excluding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment apply to the "knock-and-announce" rule? No. 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."

District attorneys office for the third judicial district and others v William G. Osborne

The U.S Supreme Court 5-4 ruled that there is no constitutional right to access to forensic evidence In March 1994, William Osborne was convicted of kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in an Alaska state court. After his conviction, Mr. Osborne sought access to biological evidence that was used to convict him. He intended to use DNA testing that was not available at the time of the trial to prove he was not the source. The District Attorney's Office (D.A.O.) in Anchorage denied access. Mr. Osborne subsequently filed suit in a federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the D.A.O. alleging that his 14th Amendment due process rights had been violated when he was denied post-conviction access to potentially exculpatory evidence. 1) May 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be used to obtain post-conviction access to evidence when there is no pending claim for which that evidence could be utilized? 2) Does the 14th Amendment's due process clause afford the plaintiff the right to obtain post-conviction access to evidence when plaintiff's intended claim is foreclosed by evidence obtained through confession? Maybe and no. The Supreme Court held that even assuming that Mr. Osborne could pursue his claims using § 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the state's DNA evidence used against him at trial. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority and joined by Justices Antonin G. Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas, the Court deferred to the legislative branch in establishing rules by which convicts can obtain DNA evidence to pursue postconviction relief.

Perry v. New Hampshire

The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause doesn't require a hearing into the reliability of eyewitness identification procedures that weren't arranged by the police Barion Perry is in prison for breaking into a car in 2008. Nubia Blandon told Nashua, N.H., police that she observed Perry from her apartment window taking things out of a parked car. She identified Perry at the scene but later could not pick him out of a photo lineup or describe him to police. A second witness identified Perry from the photo lineup. Perry filed a motion to suppress the photo identification because it was "unnecessarily suggestive" that he was a criminal. The New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld his conviction. Do the Due Process protections against unreliable identification evidence apply to all identifications made under suggestive circumstances? No. With Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the majority, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness' identification unless the identification was procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, arranged by law enforcement. The Court further stated that the Constitution does not protect a defendant against a conviction based on questionable evidence by not prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by allowing a defendant to persuade the jury that the evidence should not be believed.

Herring v. US (2009)

The U.S supreme court held that if an officer makes an arrests, reasonably, but wrongly believes there's an outstanding arrests warrant against the suspect, the arrests violates the fourth amendment but evidence obtained during a search incident to the unlawful arrest is admissible in court The Coffee County, Alabama Sheriff's Department apprehended Bennie Herring in July of 2004. Upon searching Herring's vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in Herring's pocket and a gun under the seat of his truck. However, the situation was complicated by the fact that the initial search had been made on a faulty arrest warrant. The warrant, still active in the neighboring Dale County Sheriff's Office, was supposed to have been recalled five months prior, however someone had accidentally failed to remove it from the computer system. Herring filed a motion to suppress the allegedly "illegally obtained" evidence, however the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Herring's motion and sentenced him to 27 months in prison. Does a court violate the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant by introducing evidence obtained through a police search based on an arrest warrant that should have been recalled, but was negligently allowed to remain active, at the time of the search? No. In a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority and joined by Justice Antonin G. Scalia, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It held that a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when police mistakes that lead to unlawful searches are merely the result of isolated negligence and "not systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Evidence obtained under these circumstances is admissible and not subject to the exclusionary rule.

Forensic Science

The application of scientific knowledge to questions of civil and criminal law. -DNA -controlled substances -blood types -hair Analysis -nite marks -voice analysis -handwriting -deaths -poisons -firearms/tools -digital evidence

Samson v. California

The court extended the rule in knights stating that law enforcement officers can search either parolee's homes without warrants or individualized reasonable suspicion A police officer stopped and searched Samson on the street in San Bruno, California. The officer had no warrant and later admitted he had stopped Samson only because he knew him to be on parole. The officer found that Samson was in possession of methamphetamines. Samson was arrested and charged with drug possession in state court. At trial Samson argued the drugs were inadmissible as evidence, because the search had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion and the state supreme court declined to hear the case. Did the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from conducting a warrantless search of a person who was subject to a parole search condition, where there was no suspicion of criminal wrongdoing and the sole reason for the search was because the person was on parole? No. In a 6-to-3 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court held that Samson "did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate." Parole allows convicted criminals out of prison before their sentence is completed. An inmate who chooses to complete his sentence outside of direct physical custody, however, remains in the Department of Correction's legal custody until the conclusion of his sentence, and therefore has significantly reduced privacy rights. In this case, Samson had also been required, as a condition of his parole, to sign an agreement that he would be "subject to search or seizure by a parole officer or other peace officer..., with or without a search warrant and with or without cause."

US v. Knights

The home of a probationer can be searched without a warrant for the purpose of gathering criminal evidence

critical stage in criminal prosecutions

The point when suspects right to a lawyer kicks in

Custodial Interrogation

The questioning of a suspect after that person has been taken into custody. In this situation, the suspect must be read his or her Miranda rights before interrogation can begin.

Bell v. Wolfish

The required that it was reasonable for people awaiting trial to expose their body cavity for inspection after every contact visit with someone from out the jail

Schmerber v. California

The taking of blood samples from Armando schmerbe against his will didn't compel him to be a witness against himself

Impeach

To accuse government officials of misconduct in office

Berghuis v. Thompkins

U.S Supreme Court (5-4) held that criminal suspects who want to protect their right to remain silent have to speak up and unambiguously invoke and waive it A Michigan state court convicted Van Chester Thompkins of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms related charges. After exhausting his remedies in Michigan state court, Thompkins petitioned for habeas corpus relief in a Michigan federal district court. The district court denied the petition. On appeal, Thompkins argued that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that he was denied effective counsel at trial. The Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan Supreme Court's finding that Thompkins waived his Fifth Amendment right was unreasonable because Thompkins refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had been informed of his Miranda rights and rarely made eye contact with the officer throughout the three hour interview. The Sixth Circuit also held that the Michigan Supreme Court improperly determined that Thompkins was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to request a limiting instruction related to his separately tried co-defendant's testimony. The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit, holding that the state court's decision to reject Mr. Thompkins' Miranda claim was correct. With Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that Mr. Thompkins failed to invoke his Miranda rights to remain silent and to counsel because he failed to do so "unambiguously." Moreover, the Court reasoned that Mr. Thompkins waived his Miranda right to remain silent when he "knowingly and voluntarily" made a statement to the police. The Court further held that, even if Mr. Thompkins' counsel was ineffective, he cannot show he was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance - a prerequisite to establishing that his Sixth Amendment right was violated.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders

U.S Supreme Court 5-4 decided that strip searching Albert Florence before he entered the General jail population was reasonable Albert Florence was searched twice in seven days after he was arrested on a warrant for a traffic violation he had already paid. Florence filed a lawsuit against officials at the two jails, contending the jailhouse searches were unreasonable because he was being held for failure to pay a fine, which is not a crime in New Jersey. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled that the strip search of Florence violated the Constitution. However, officials representing both Burlington and Essex Counties appealed the decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, holding that it is reasonable to search everyone being jailed, even without suspicion that a person may be concealing a weapon or drugs. Does the Fourth Amendment permit a jail to conduct a suspicion-less strip search whenever an individual is arrested, including for minor offenses? Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, affirmed the lower court, holding that the strip searches for inmates entering the general population of a prison do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court concluded that a prisoner's likelihood of possessing contraband based on the severity of the current offense or an arrestee's criminal history is too difficult to determine effectively. The Court pointed out instances, such as the arrest of Timothy McVeigh, in which an individual who commits a minor traffic offense is capable of extreme violence.

South Dakota v. Opperman

U.S Supreme Court held that Vermillion South Dakota police inventory search procedures were reasonable fourth amendment searches The respondent, Donald Opperman, left his car unattended in a prohibited parking space in violation of local ordinances in Vermillion, South Dakota. He received two parking tickets from local police officers, and as a result, his vehicle was subsequently inspected and impounded. At the impound lot, a police officer observed personal items in the dashboard of the car and unlocked the door to inventory the items using standard procedures. In the unlocked glove compartment, the officer found marijuana in a plastic bag. Opperman was arrested later that day and charged with possession of marijuana. He was convicted but the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed on appeal and concluded the search was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Does the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Clause prohibit police from inventorying a vehicle that is lawfully impounded for traffic violations, without first obtaining a warrant? No. Mr. Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger delivered opinion for the 6-3 majority. The Court held that police can inventory a vehicle that has been lawfully impounded, even without a warrant. Inventory procedures for impounded vehicles are taken in order to protect the owner's property and to protect police from claims of stolen items as well as potential danger. Therefore, the search of an impounded vehicle is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Colorado v. Connelly

U.S Supreme Court ruler that Francis Connelly confession was voluntary even though his serious mental illness led him to believe that God led him to believe God ordered him to confess or commit suicide In 1983, Francis Connelly approached a police officer and, without any prompting, confessed to murder. The police officer immediately informed Connelly that he had the right to remain silent, but Connelly indicated that he still wished to discuss the murder. It was later discovered that Connelly was suffering from chronic schizophrenia at the time of the confession. A Colorado trial court suppressed the statements on the ground that they were made involuntarily. The Court held that because the taking of Connelly's statements as evidence did not involve any element of governmental coercion, no violation of the Due Process Clause occurred.

Shakedown routine

Unannounced searches of prisoners and their cells for weapons of contraband

Manson v. Brathwaite

United States Supreme Court ruled that trooper Jimmy Glover's single photo show up identification did not creat a very substantial likelihood of false identification An undercover police officer bought drugs from a narcotics vendor. The officer saw the vendor up close for several minutes. The officer described the vendor to another officer who obtained a photograph of Nowell A. Brathwaite and gave it to the first officer. The officer identified the Brathwaite as the narcotics vendor. At trial, the photograph was admitted as evidence and the officer again identified Brathwaite as the vendor. A jury convicted Brathwaite of possession and sale of heroin. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Brathwaite then filed a petition for a writ of habeus corpus in district court. The district court dismissed the petition, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the officer's identification was unreliable and the method of identification from a single photograph was unnecessarily suggestive. Did the court of appeals err in allowing the police officer to identify Brathwaite from a single photograph? No. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for a 7-2 majority, reversed the court of appeals. The Supreme Court held that a suggestive identification procedure does not automatically require excluding the evidence if the identification is reliable, considering the totality of the circumstances. With the circumstances in this case, the identification was reliable.

Board of Education v. Earls

Upheld random drug testing of ALL public school students in extracurricular activities.

Lineups

Witnesses try to pick suspect out of group of individuals who are present. In photo lineup witnesses look for the suspect in a group of photos also known as photo array

simultaneous presentation

a lineup presentation in which all choices are shown at the same time

sequential presentation

a lineup presentation in which the choices are shown one at a time

Blind administrator

a person conducting a lineup who doesn't know which person in the lineup is the suspect

prophylactic rule

a procedure to prevent violations of constitutional rights

Mapp v. Ohio

all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression . Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.

relative judgement

an eyewitness's process of deciding, when looking at a simultaneous lineup, which of the people shown in the lineup most closely resembles the perpetrator

inventory searches

consist of making a list of people's personal property and containers that the government holds in custody. Containers include vehicles, purses, clothing, or anything else where people in custody might put their belongings. After looking at the containers officers put them away for safe keeping

Probationers

convicted offenders who are sentenced to supervised release in the community instead of serving time in jails or prison

State v Clopten (Utah 2009)

held that defendants have a right to call expert witnesses to explain to jury the limits of human perception and memory and how they affect eye witness and identification evidence

attenuation exception

illegally obtained evidence is admissible if there is less than a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence

cautionary instruction

instruction in which judges explain the weaknesses of eyewitness identification evidence to juries.

Forensic ipse dixit statutes-means "without proof"

laws that authorize the state to prove its forensic allegations by relying on forensic certificates rather than live testimony

North Carolina v Butler

no need for written or verbal waiver for Miranda rights

might-or-might-not-be-present instruction

one of the ways to improve the reliability of eyewitness identification of strangers is to tell witnesses the suspect might or might not be among the photos or members of a lineup.

Knock and Announce Exception

permits the admission of evidence seized during searches of homes even when officers violate the knock and announce rule

Fillers

persons known to be innocent who participate in a lineup

Hudson v. Palmer

prison officials have the authority to search cells and confiscate any materials found •said that the officer said next time he's going to mess his room up even more ""We have repeatedly held that prisons are not beyond the reach of the constitution. No iron curtain separates on from the other"

Parolees

prisoners who have served time in prison and who remain under supervision after their release from prison

deterrence justification

rationale for the exclusionary rule based on the assumption that it sends a strong message to law enforcement and prevents violations of constitutional rights

Memory experts

scientists whose profession is providing empirical demonstrations of how memory actually functions

confessions

suspect's written or oral acknowledgement of guilt, often including details about the crime

express waiver test

suspects have to make clear statements that indicate (1)they know their rights, (2)know they're giving them up, and (3)know the consequences of giving them up

Social cost of the rule

the exclusionary rule might free guilty people and undermine the prosecution's case by keeping good evidence out of court

acquisition of memory

the perception of an event, when information is first entered into memory

Accusatory stage of the criminal process

the point at which the criminal process shifts focus from a general investigation of a crime to building a case against a specific individual

Retention of memory

the process of storing information during the period of time between an event and the eventual recollection of a particular piece of information

Retrieval of memory

the time when a person recalls the stored information about an event for the purpose of identifying a person in an event