Criminal Law, Probable Criminal Law, Probable Cause, Search and Cause, Search and Seizure, and the 4th Seizure, and the 4th and 5th Amendmentsand 5th Amendments

A quick-and-dirty introduction A quick-and-dirty introduction to the subjectto the subject

Steps in criminal justice Steps in criminal justice processprocess

Reported CrimeReported Crime InvestigationInvestigation ArrestArrest BookingBooking Post-arrest investigationPost-arrest investigation Decision to ChargeDecision to Charge Filing the “Filing the “complaintcomplaint” vs. indictment” vs. indictment

More steps in crim More steps in crim justice...justice...

ArraignmentArraignment Preliminary Hearing (felonies only)Preliminary Hearing (felonies only) Pre-trial motionsPre-trial motions TrialTrial SentencingSentencing AppealsAppeals Post-conviction remediesPost-conviction remedies

Constitutional Elements of Constitutional Elements of a Fair Triala Fair Trial

44thth Amendment: Amendment: No warrant (or no No warrant (or no arrestarrest) but that which is based on ) but that which is based on

probable causeprobable cause No “unreasonable” searches or seizures-No “unreasonable” searches or seizures-

55thth Amendment (Topic 27): Amendment (Topic 27): Grand Jury indictment Grand Jury indictment No double jeopardy-the No double jeopardy-the TrevorrowTrevorrow problem problem No being forced “to be a witness against self”No being forced “to be a witness against self” No deprivation of life, liberty, or property w/o No deprivation of life, liberty, or property w/o due due

process of lawprocess of law

More Constitutional More Constitutional elements...elements...

66thth Amendment Amendment In criminal cases, right to a speedy trial -10/60 In criminal cases, right to a speedy trial -10/60

rule & “time waiver”rule & “time waiver” Right to a public trialRight to a public trial Right to an impartial jury from the local Right to an impartial jury from the local

community-community-BatsonBatson motions motions Notice of charges against youNotice of charges against you Right to confront witnesses against you and to Right to confront witnesses against you and to

compel such witnesses to show up to trialcompel such witnesses to show up to trial Right to have assistance of counselRight to have assistance of counsel

More crim law More crim law constitutional...constitutional...

88thth Amendment Amendment ““Excessive bail shall not be required…Excessive bail shall not be required… “…“…nor shall Excessive fines be imposed…-nor shall Excessive fines be imposed…- ““nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

1414thth Amendment Amendment “…“…nor shall any State deprive any nor shall any State deprive any personperson of life, of life,

liberty or property, without due process of law,…liberty or property, without due process of law,… “…“…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction

the equal protection of the laws.”the equal protection of the laws.”

TheThe Fourth AmendmentFourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describe the place to be particularly describe the place to be searched, and the person or things to searched, and the person or things to be seized.be seized.

What is the remedy for a What is the remedy for a violation of the 4th violation of the 4th Amendment?Amendment?

Fire the cop who violates your rights? Fire the cop who violates your rights? Allow the evidence to be used in court.Allow the evidence to be used in court.

Fine the cop who violates your rights? Fine the cop who violates your rights? Allow the evidence to be used in court.Allow the evidence to be used in court.

Disallow the evidence. (The Disallow the evidence. (The “exclusionary rule.”) Is this too “exclusionary rule.”) Is this too Draconian a remedy?Draconian a remedy?• Weeks v. U.SWeeks v. U.S. (1914), . (1914), Mapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio (1961) (1961)

To whom does the 4th To whom does the 4th Amendment apply?Amendment apply?

People v. NorthPeople v. North (1981) (1981) [29 CAL.3D 509, [29 CAL.3D 509, 629 P.2D 19, 174 CAL.RPTR. 511]629 P.2D 19, 174 CAL.RPTR. 511]

In re T.L.OIn re T.L.O. (1985). (1985)

HAS A "SEARCH" OR A HAS A "SEARCH" OR A "SEIZURE” TAKEN "SEIZURE” TAKEN PLACE?PLACE?

Did a "government employee or Did a "government employee or agent" conduct the search or agent" conduct the search or seizure?seizure?

Was it a "search" or "seizure" Was it a "search" or "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment under the Fourth Amendment as defined by the courts?as defined by the courts?

If YES to both items, consider If YES to both items, consider the followingthe following

WAS THE "SEARCH WAS THE "SEARCH AND SEIZURE" AND SEIZURE" REASONABLE?REASONABLE?

Was the search or seizure Was the search or seizure conducted with a valid conducted with a valid warrant? (If yes, no 4th warrant? (If yes, no 4th Amendment violation)Amendment violation)

If not, does one of the court If not, does one of the court recognized recognized exceptions to the exceptions to the warrant requirement warrant requirement apply?apply?

Warrant-less search Warrant-less search exceptions:exceptions:

Plain View--there is no reasonable expectation of priv.Plain View--there is no reasonable expectation of priv. Consent-you verbally waive your expectation of privacyConsent-you verbally waive your expectation of privacy "Hot Pursuit" ("Hot Pursuit" (U.S. v. SantanaU.S. v. Santana)) Emergency ("exigent") circumstancesEmergency ("exigent") circumstances Motor vehicles (Motor vehicles (Carroll v. United StatesCarroll v. United States (1925), (1925),

Wyoming v. HoughtonWyoming v. Houghton (1999)) [moveable crime (1999)) [moveable crime scenes]scenes]

Incident to a lawful arrest (Incident to a lawful arrest (ChimelChimel)) Border Searches, Airport /Security searches/ PrisonsBorder Searches, Airport /Security searches/ Prisons Cursory pat-down frisk (Cursory pat-down frisk (TerryTerry searches) ( searches) (Minn. v. Minn. v.

DickersonDickerson))

Wyoming v. HoughtonWyoming v. Houghton (1999)(1999)

During routine traffic stop, officer noticed During routine traffic stop, officer noticed syringe in the driver's shirt pocket, which syringe in the driver's shirt pocket, which the driver admitted using to take drugs. the driver admitted using to take drugs. The officer then searched passenger’s The officer then searched passenger’s purse, finding drug paraphernalia, purse, finding drug paraphernalia, arresting passenger (Houghton). Trial arresting passenger (Houghton). Trial court denies request to suppress. Houghton court denies request to suppress. Houghton was convicted and appeals.was convicted and appeals.

The Wyoming Supreme The Wyoming Supreme CourtCourt

Wyoming Supreme Court ruled an officer Wyoming Supreme Court ruled an officer with PC to search a vehicle may search all with PC to search a vehicle may search all containers that might conceal the object of containers that might conceal the object of the search; but, if the officer knows or the search; but, if the officer knows or should know that container belongs to a should know that container belongs to a passenger who is not suspected of criminal passenger who is not suspected of criminal activity, then the container is outside the activity, then the container is outside the scope of the search unless someone had scope of the search unless someone had the opportunity to conceal contraband the opportunity to conceal contraband within it to avoid detection. This particular within it to avoid detection. This particular search violated Constitution… BUT search violated Constitution… BUT

The U.S. Supreme CourtThe U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Police officers with probable cause to Police officers with probable cause to search a car, as in this case, may search a car, as in this case, may inspect passengers' belongings found inspect passengers' belongings found in the car that are capable of in the car that are capable of concealing the object of the search. concealing the object of the search.

http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-184.htmlhttp://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-184.html

Supreme Court reasoningSupreme Court reasoning Balancing the relative interests (right to privacy Balancing the relative interests (right to privacy

vs. legitimate gov’t interests) weighs in favor of vs. legitimate gov’t interests) weighs in favor of searching a passenger's belongings. Passengers, searching a passenger's belongings. Passengers, no less than drivers, possess a reduced EOP with no less than drivers, possess a reduced EOP with regard to the property they transport in cars. No regard to the property they transport in cars. No body search was involved here. Auto is mobile body search was involved here. Auto is mobile and can be moved, losing contraband. The and can be moved, losing contraband. The Wyoming Supreme Court's "passenger Wyoming Supreme Court's "passenger property" rule would be unworkable in practice.property" rule would be unworkable in practice.

The 5th AmendmentThe 5th Amendment

“…“…nor shall any person…nor shall any person…be compelled in any be compelled in any criminal case to be a criminal case to be a witness against witness against himself….” himself….”

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Hypo #1Hypo #1

M questioned by law enforcement officer in kidnapping/rape; cut off from outside world, not told of right to attorney or right to be silent. Oral and signed statement obtained. Convicted as a result. Appeals.

What result?

Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona

Prior to Prior to questioningquestioning a suspect in a suspect in custodycustody “or otherwise significantly “or otherwise significantly deprived of freedom” must be deprived of freedom” must be warned of his/her right to silence, warned of his/her right to silence, right to an attorney. Any waiver of right to an attorney. Any waiver of these rights must by these rights must by voluntaryvoluntary, , knowingknowing, and , and intelligentintelligent. If suspect . If suspect wants to talk to an attorney…”all wants to talk to an attorney…”all questioning must cease.”questioning must cease.”

Hypo #2 (Colorado v. Hypo #2 (Colorado v. Connelly)Connelly)

W/o warning, C sought out police & confessed to murder. Properly Mirandized; waived M. rights. Later took police to scene. Later recanted and said “voices” had told him what to do. Deemed incompetent to aid in own defense. Followed “voice of God;” statements were deemed not “voluntary” and inadmissible. State appeals this determination. What result?

ConnellyConnelly

Absent government coercion, and absent Absent government coercion, and absent evidence to contrary, a suspect’s statements evidence to contrary, a suspect’s statements that he willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily that he willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily waived Miranda rights are valid. Rehnquist waived Miranda rights are valid. Rehnquist said that the sole concern of the 5th said that the sole concern of the 5th Amendment is GOVERNMENT COERCION.Amendment is GOVERNMENT COERCION.

Dissent: “Confessions by mentally ill Dissent: “Confessions by mentally ill individuals or by persons other than police individuals or by persons other than police officers are now considered voluntary.”officers are now considered voluntary.”

Hypo #3 (Colorado v. Hypo #3 (Colorado v. Spring)Spring)

Informant told ATF that Spring had killed Walker and engaged in illeg. selling guns. Undercover agents arrested S. Properly M’d 3 times, he was questioned about the guns and finally about murder. 2 months later, he was questioned again (and properly M’d) and confessed

What result?

Spring decisionSpring decision

A suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of A suspect’s awareness of all the possible subjects of questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant questioning in advance of interrogation is not relevant to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, to determining whether the suspect voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his 5th Amendment knowingly, and intelligently waived his 5th Amendment privilege. The privilege. The MirandaMiranda rule tells him that “anything rule tells him that “anything may be used against him.”may be used against him.”

Dissent: Suspect would not have agreed to questioning Dissent: Suspect would not have agreed to questioning w/o consulting an attorney if he had known what w/o consulting an attorney if he had known what crimes he was being questioned for; therefore it was crimes he was being questioned for; therefore it was not “knowing and intelligent.”not “knowing and intelligent.”

Hypo #4 (Edwards v. Hypo #4 (Edwards v. Arizona)Arizona)

E, suspect in rob., burg. & 1st deg. murder, properly M’d, asserted rt. to atty. Next day, not having talked to atty, was told by guard “he had” to talk to some detectives. Questioned, he made incriminating statements; convicted, appeals

What result?

EdwardsEdwards

Invoking the right to counsel Invoking the right to counsel involves more of a burden on involves more of a burden on police to show that the waiver is police to show that the waiver is truly knowing and intelligent as truly knowing and intelligent as well as voluntary. Being told he well as voluntary. Being told he “had to” talk to officers indicates “had to” talk to officers indicates that Edwards’ wavier was not truly that Edwards’ wavier was not truly voluntary.voluntary.

Hypo #5 (Braeske v. Hypo #5 (Braeske v. California)California)

Barry convicted of 1st deg. mur. w/ use of “confessions” after asking to speak “off the record” with detective. Subsequent statements used against Barry.

What result?

When does the When does the MirandaMiranda rule apply? rule apply?

BOTH OF THESE MUST BE PRESENT…BOTH OF THESE MUST BE PRESENT… When you are IN CUSTODYWhen you are IN CUSTODY

• When a reasonable person would not When a reasonable person would not expect to be able to walk awayexpect to be able to walk away

When you are BEING INTERROGATEDWhen you are BEING INTERROGATED• Does this mean “being questioned”?Does this mean “being questioned”?• Brewer v. WilliamsBrewer v. Williams

When you “waive” your When you “waive” your MirandaMiranda rights... rights...

THE WAIVER MUST BE ALL THE WAIVER MUST BE ALL THREE OF THESE…THREE OF THESE…

It must be “VOLUNTARY”It must be “VOLUNTARY” It must be “KNOWING”It must be “KNOWING” It must be “INTELLIGENT”It must be “INTELLIGENT”

Exceptions to the Exceptions to the MirandaMiranda rule and the exclusionary rule and the exclusionary rulerule

““Good faith” exception: Good faith” exception: U.S. v. U.S. v. LeonLeon

““Inevitable evidence” exception: Inevitable evidence” exception: Nix v. WilliamsNix v. Williams

““Dangerous suspect” exception: Dangerous suspect” exception: N.Y. v. QuarlesN.Y. v. Quarles

Your Assignment….Your Assignment….

Read the transcript of Read the transcript of People v. CookPeople v. Cook Read the case to which you were Read the case to which you were

assigned:assigned:• Hodari D. v. CaliforniaHodari D. v. California• In re Baraka H.In re Baraka H.• Terry v. OhioTerry v. Ohio• People v. VerinPeople v. Verin• People v. GonzalezPeople v. Gonzalez• People v. SamplesPeople v. Samples