US ConstitutionDue process:-rights of accused-procedures-lacks specifics
5th AmendmentNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Procedural LawBody of lawsGoverning each stageCriminal Justice processViolation-person goes freeLegislative/judicial oversight
Rules of EvidencePolice gather evidenceProsecutor presents evidenceDefense argues againstJudge rules
Rules of EvidenceRequirements of admitting evidenceDefine qualifications of an expertNature of testimony
Rules of EvidenceSearch and seizureInterrogationArrestingRelevance of evidence
Exclusionary RuleEvidence obtained illegally is inadmissibleWeeks v. US (1918);-no warrant-evidence thrown out-federal level only
Fruit of the Poisoned Tree DoctrineExclusionary rule extended:-from evidence directly obtained illegally-to evidence indirectly obtained illegally
Fruit of the Poisoned Tree Doctrine Takes police to hidden gun/money Suspect confesses to whole event Detectives confront suspect w/bag & mask CSA sees car opens trunk-mask/bag Search warrant for residence Bank robbery-fingerprints lifted/ID’d
Fruit of the Poisoned Tree DoctrineProbable cause hearing:-defense -search warrant listed residence-judge rules car search illegal-any/all evidence obtained inadmissible-objects in car/confession/suspect leading to hidden items-left? fingerprints at bank---suspect has banked many times /past three years
Mapp v. Ohio 1961No punishment for illegal evidencePolice:-forced confessions-ignore constitutional rights of accusedSupreme Court applied Exclusionary Rule to state courts
Search & Seizure4th Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable CauseA set of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed and that the person accused had committed the crime.
Search & Seizure4th Amendment:-right to privacy not clearly defined-Supreme Court interpretations-”reasonable expectation “of privacy
Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:A. Incident to lawful arrest-person-immediate control-Chimel v. CA (1969)-vehicle (seats/console)-AZ v. Gant 2009
Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:B. Plain view-police have lawful presence-cannot move items/objects-6 foot officer/5 foot wall sees marijuana plants-exigent circumstances
Search & SeizureExceptions to warrant requirement:C. Consent-authority to give limited-once given can be withdrawn
Searching VehiclesCarroll v. US 1925:-search of vehicle w/o warrant admissible if:-PC to believe crime occurred-delay in search would result in loss of evidence
Searching VehiclesImpounded vehicles:-inventory-clear written protocols/standards-force locks-protect police libability
Searching PersonsCourt recognizes officer safety!!!-pat down searches for weapons-Terry v. Ohio (1968): Terry stop-stop-talk-frisk-”reasonable suspicion”-PO articulate reason for stop
Public Safety ExceptionsImmediate action by police to protect public-armed suspect-no weapon upon arrest-search immediate area of suspect’s path-ask where gun isSearch of airline/bus passengers/subway (2005):-w/o PC-w/o warrant-”implied consent”
Border searches:-no reasonable suspicion/PC/warrant-no permission needed since cannot refuse-legislated/case lawSchool searches:-administrators/not police-backpacks/purses/lockers-on and near school property-2009: no strip searches
Good Faith ExceptionPolice thought warrant was valid:-invalid due to clerical error-wrong address /dates on warrant-evidence obtained admissible
Privacy IssuesWiretapping:-phones-search and seizure-consent-PC/warrantElectronic communications:-strict guidelines-terrorism is an exception
Other exceptionsUSA Patriot Act:-searches w/o warrantIncarceration:-no expectation of privacy-applies to probation/parole
Deadly ForceFleeing felons-shoot-Tenn. V. Garner (1985)-only shoot fleeing felons if:-”clear and present danger”
Interrogations/Confessions DO NOT WRITE DOWN Miranda: You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Interrogations/ConfessionsMiranda:-in custody-interrogationWaiver of rights:-Knowingly-Voluntarily-Willingly
Exception to MirandaExcited utterance:-spontaneous-uncoerced-confess to 3rd party
Right to AttorneyGideon v. Wainright (1963)-indigent has right to lawyer at trialEscobedo v. Ill (1964)-right to lawyer during interrogations Miranda v AZ (1966)-suspects have to be told of rights
Police DeceptionDeception during interrogations:-lawful-exception-telling suspect they have a dealPolice line ups:-w/o consent-attorney present-all look alike-actual suspects-persons not capable of being guilty
Terrorism DO NOT WRITE DOWNEnemy Combatants:-water boarding?-torture?-same rights as criminals?