Criminal Procedure (Investigative) Outline

Criminal Procedure Outline

Main Stages:1. Arrest

i. Presentment/arraingment/bond2. Charge

i. Complaint/indictment/information3. Pre-Trial Motions

i. Motion to supres evidence4. Trial5. Sentencing6. Direct Appeal7. Habeas and Habeas Appeal

Sources of Rights

1. 4th Amendment Protectionsi. Search

ii. Seizureiii. Title III and ECPA

2. 5th Amendment Protectionsi. Compelled Testimonial Self-Incrimination

ii. Mirandaiii. Due Process (Shocks the Conscience)

1. Beginning of class2. Has shrunk, became residual DP Clause

3. 6th Amendment Protectionsi. Post-charge deliberate elicitation without counsel

Want to go through fact pattern, to see where protections come into play:General Approach to Fact Patterns

1. Was there a 4/5/6 amend violation for which the defendant has standing?2. Does the exclusionary rule apply to the violation of the right?

i. Only applies for criminal trial3. Prior illegality - does the FoPT apply to invalidate otherwise legally obtained

evidence?

Modern Criminal ProcedureA. Residual DP

a.Medina v. California p100 & Cooper v. Okla. P108 Due process forbids the trying of a mentally incompetent person Burden is on the defendant

b. Riggins v. Nevada p107 Generally the state cannot involutarily medicate someone on the street Can they do it to someone to make them stand trial Not without a showing of necessity and that it is medically appropriate

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld p109 Is it ok to detain a US citizen indefinitely without hearing and criminal

charge on the grounds that the is "enemy combatant" in the war on terror

Page 1 of 22


Affirms president's power, there must be a hearing and an opportunity for the detainee to be heard

Hurtado v. California - pg 80 Grand Jury Indictment Court asked if it was arbitrary

No, there is a law of general application There has been due inquiry There was a chance to be heard

Rochin v. California - pg 92 forcible stomach pump Shocks the conscious

Duncan v. La - Incorporation - relation of claimed right to the other specific protections of

bill of rights Mathews v. Edlridge - 101

Cost benefit balance Patterson v. NY - 102

History Da. Osbourne

Federalism

B. 4th Amendmenta.Cognizeable search or seizure for which defendant has standingb. Warrant required?

1. Yes - was there PC, particularity, oath, magistrate?2. No - exception to the warrant requirement

c.Exclusionary Remedy Standing, good faith, causation, deterrence

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Search: Assumption of Risk Expectation of Privacy

Lawfulness? DisclosureA. Katz - 2 parts test

1. Reasonable expectation of privacy2. Expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize

B. Open fields (non-curtilege)1. Oliver v. US (1984)

Acting upon a tip that defendant was growing marijuana on his property, two Kentucky State Police Officers drove onto defendant’s land, past his house, up to a gate which was marked with a “no trespassing” sign. The officers left their vehicle and walked along a footpath around the gate onto defendant’s property and continued down the road for nearly a mile.

"open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance.

Page 2 of 22


2. US v. Dunn (1987) Police went through several barbed wire fences Was still ok

If you are outside the curtilage (home) , the open fields are subject to warrantless searches

a. Curtilage Factors: i. Proximity of area you believe

ii. Whether or not its included in the enclosureiii. Nature of the uses to which the area is putiv. Steps taken

C. Sense Enhancing When the government uses device that is not in general public use to

explore details of the home that would have been unknowable without physical intrusion

US v. Knotts Cops following suspects Beeper supplemented police investigation Beeper (ok)

US v. Karo Beeper (ok) Problematic when info is coming from inside a residence

c. Kyllo v. US Looking to see if there were growing lamps for marijuana Used a thermal imager Court held that without warrant it was a violation of 4th amendment 4th amendment draws a firm line at the entrance of the house The device is not for public use

3 types of Use 1. Almost no availability 2. General availability3. Common use, as the public uses4. Common use, as by the police

d. US v. Garcia Ok to plant GPS Streets are public Didn’t have interfere with possessory interest GPS (ok)

D. Overflights Altitude member of public expect police to be? Was it commonplace? Calif v. Ciraolo - 360

In an ager wehre private and commercial flights in the public airways is routine, it is unreasonable for a respondent to exptet that his marijuana plants were constitiutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000 feet

Florida v. Riely - 361

Page 3 of 22


Greenhouse 20 feet behind home 10% of roof missing

Do not enter sign with wire fence surrounded home and greenhouse Flyover at

Flyover at 1000 feet Focus on helicopter following regulations

E. Snitch/Undercover Consent to allow Snitch into home Assumption of risk Lewis v. US

Informant is going into home buying drugs Being sent in by the Govt Locus was characterized as a place of business

Us v. White - 368 Wiring up informant He goes into the home White: Assumption of Risk Harlan: examining the desirability of saddling things upon society

F. Morals Seems to be ok for police to lie

G. Garbage Is ok, it is abandoned to scavangers California v. Greenwood - 374

H. Business Records Transactional information is ok if processed by another Us v. Miller

Bank records Knowingly exposed to the public

Smith v. Maryland Phone dialing/billing/calling records Pen registry

I. Dog Sniffs Dogs nose is a viable technology What is being filtered through search device Illinois v. Caballes

Had no privacy interest in illegal substanceSeizure:

Person: when someone would not feel free to terminate encounter Some meaningful intereference with a n individuals possessory interstA. Auto Stops

a. Brendlin v. Claif Driver is seized Passenger is seized and may question constitutionality of the stop

B. Fleeing suspecta. Calif. v. Hodari - 406

Page 4 of 22


Must be a show of authoirty + submissionC. Roadbocks

Does setting a roadblock or bumping fleeing care to make it crash = seizure

Brower (1989) 405 Intentional acquisition of control

Scott (2008) Intentional acquisition of control

Seizure occurs at the rode block, when the means are applied Probable Cause:

< preponderance (more likely than not) > Reasonable Suspicion (reasonable and articulible facts)1. Nathanson v. US - 423

May not based on conclusory allegations2. Draper v. SU - 424

Can exist where there is predictive corroboration 3. Illinois v. Gates - 426

Totality of circumstancea. Veracityb. Basisc. corroboration

4. Maryland v. Pringle - 443 Individualized PC for all

5. Ybarra (1979) Probable cause to believe bar tender has drugs Search Ybarra and find drugs Invalidates

6. Di Re (1948) Cops place a person under arrest Informant gave info on specific person was responsible for contraband

Can be Individualized or Jointly Warrants:

What is requried to make them validly issued

What is required to make them validly executed Knock and Announce - Non Exclusionary Detaining Occupants during Search Warrants

Muehler v. Mena (2005) - Yes, safety issue Illinois v. McArthur - 475 -

Pre-warrant detention Media Ride Alongs

Wilson v. Layne - 458 Not justified

Exceptions to Warrant Recquirement :

Page 5 of 22


1. Exigent Circumstancea. Mincy v. Ariz - 463

Murder is not an exignet It was not impractible to get warrant

b. Welsh v. Wisconson - 470c. Illinois v. McArthur - 475

Ok to lock out of homed. Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart

Community Caretaking 2. Plain View

a. Lawful situs where observation madeb. Lawful right of access to itemc. PC

A. NY v. Class - 479 B. Arizona v. Hicks - 480

Police lawfully in the apartment (exigent circumstances) O observed an expensive stereo equipment from lawful vantage

point had right to access to the equipment. But the equipment only seemed out of place and officer didn’t have

probable cause. Officer moved the equipment to read the serial number and then

determined that was stolen. Supreme Court held that the moving of the equipment was a new

search which was not justified by the original exigent circumstances. So plain view doctrine inapplicable.

C. Horton v. California - 485 Officer obtained warrant to search for jewelry which was taken in

robbery. Officer also expected to find the weapons used in the robbery, but

didn’t include in weapon. Sure enough, officer found weapons in the area legally provided by

the warrant. Court took away the inadvertency requirement of Coolidge because

it didn’t provide any additional protection to privacy.3. Automobile

A. Carrol v. US - 489 If there is probable cause the cops can search your car Cops were allowed to tear apart car with probable cause Reason: mobility of cars allows for destruction/movement of

evidence while a warrant would be obtainedB. Chambers v. Maroney - 490

If there is probable cause the cops can search your impounded car Diminished expectation of privacy in car

C. California v. Carney automobile exception applies to mobile homes Mobile home is like a car

Page 6 of 22


Car Container Where the police have PC to search a car they may search all

containers therein, as long as there is PC to believe containers contain contraband

California v. Acevedo Carroll governs police may search an automobile and the containers within it where

they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained

Search must be PC specificE. Wyoming v. Houghton

Left items ok to search If PC for car, can search passenger's belongings found in the car

F. US v. DiRe No person search because of auto search Passengers clothing is not included within a lawful car search With probable cause police may search an automobile and the

containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained, but not the passenger's clothing

General Rule With probable cause police may search an automobile and the

containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained, but not the passenger's clothing

4. Arrest Need Arrest Warrant for entry into home for arrest, unless hot pursuit US v. Watson - 511

Warrantless arrests are ok if there PC Atwater v. Lago Vista

Can arrest for misdemeanor crimes Of for non arrestable offenses

C. Payton v. NY - 616 Entry into suspects home is ok to arrest where there is reasonable

belief the target of the arrest is in the home Can go into home (with arrest warrant) looking for suspect

D. Steagald v. US Believed that suspect went to Steagolds home Entered Steagolds home and subsequently found evidence against

Steagold Court held that the Police could not execute an arrest warrant at

another person's home Cannot go into 3rd party's home to execute an arrest warrant

5. Search Incident to Arrest

A. Persona. Robinson (1973)

Without PC or Warrant police can search to:

Page 7 of 22


Disarm suspect; and Preserve evidence

b. Knowles v. Iowa In order to apply search incident to arrest, they must make

arrestB. Home

a. US v. Robinson Person OK- look for evidence/safety (no PC)

b. Chimel v. Calfironia There was no constitutional justification for searching far

beyond the petitioner's person and the area from within which he might have obtained either a weapon or something that could have been used as evidence against him

Wingspan Theory Home - can search Grab zone without PC

c. CF. Maryland v. Buie Officers may "as a precautionary matter and without probable

cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched

A protective sweep, aimed at protecting the arresting officers, . . . may extend only to a cursory inspection of those spaces where a person may be found

Home - Protective sweep for safety reasons Immediate area, reasonable suspicsion for attackers

d. State v. Spencer (Conn. 2004) there must be articulable facts which, taken together with the

rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.

C. Cara. NY v. Belton (1981)

When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile (and all containers therein)

b. Thornton v. US (2004) Belton governs even when an officer does not make contact

until the person arrested has left the vehicle So long as arrestee is the sort of "recent occupant" of a

vehicle . . . officers may search that vehicle incident to the arrest

c. Arizona v. Gant: (2009) “search incident to arrest” doctrine does not allow law

enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless search of an

Page 8 of 22


arrestee's automobile after the arrestee has been handcuffed or otherwise prevented from regaining access to the car.

If not secured, they can search passenger compartment to look for evidence/danger

If suspect is secure, they can search wingspan6. Terry Stops

Brief investigative detention Was the stop justified at its inception

a. Reasonable Suspicion based on specific articulable facts Was the stop appropriately limited in its scope/intrusiveness

a. Limited in cope - outside the clothingb. Time/Duration - ok for delay in the timeframe of the stopc. Cannot move to another location

Florida v. JL Requires the tip to be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in

its tendency to indentify a determinate person. Anonymous tip no good without predictive

Ill. v. Wardlow Officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a

location in determining whether the circumstance are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation

Nervous behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion

Terry accepts the risk that officers may stop innocent people Reasonable suspicion must be based on common sense judgments

and inference about human behavior Reasonable Suspicion when flee high crime area

7. Terry and Cars:A. Penn. v. Mimms

Police have authority to order people out of carsB. Arizona v. Johnson

Can search passenger for reason not related to vehicle stopB. Whren v. US (1996) Facts:

waited unusually long at a stop sign Turned without a signal Speed off Were stopped in congested traffic Cops spot drugs in hand

Cops were plain clothes vice officers Claim is that the officers were acting pre-textually/racist Holding

The court is not going to look at eh actual motivation of the officer 4th amendment reasonableness = probable cause Discrimination is a Equal Protection claim Court is not going to second guess what the states make illegal

Page 9 of 22


8. Special Needs Beyond needs of ordinary law enforcement

RoadblocksMartinez-Fuerte (1976)

Balancing Test: The need is great The intrusion is small

Delaware v. Prouse (1979) Not constitutional unconstrained exercise of discretion"

Mich. State Police v. Sitz (1990) OK Government Purpose; magnitude of problem Safety concern All vehicles stops

Indianapolis v. Edmond (2000) No Decline to approve a program whose primarily purpose is

untimely indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control

Focus on purpose of the stop/roadblock Overturns Whren?

No Whren in PC stops Not PC stop look to Primary Purpose

Illinois v. Lidster (2004) Crime solving ok Crime stopping not ok

Airports Boarders School searches

N.J. v. TLO Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton

Ok to search Redding v. Safford Unified School Dist.

Unreasonable to strip search for advil Government Employee Workspaces [Diminished expectation of

privacy] O'Connor v. Ortega Quon v. Ontario

Reading police text messages Administrative reason There is a reasonable expectation of privacy

Parolees/DNA from Convicts and arrestees Griffin v. Wisconsin

Civil and regulatory searches

Page 10 of 22


Ferguson v. Charleston (2001) Drug testing pregnant women NO good, it was evidence collection

9. Consent Searches

1. Was the consent given validly1. Schneckloth

Voluntary Determined on the totality of circumstance Not under duress or coercion, express or implicit

2. Ohio v. Robinette2. Did the scope of the search exceed the consent?3. If consent given by a 3rd party, was it reasonable for the police to rely on

the third-party consent?10. Wiretaps:

A. Title III Wire Tap Specific offense Pre-warrant admin authorization Exhaustion Pc- crime, person , facility 30 day limit (subject to extension with PC Progress reports Minimization (Scott v. US 1978)

Have to turn off on non-criminal talks Sealing Inventory Exclusionary evidence

B. Electronic Messaging: ECPA:We are talking about contacting an individual's ISP

Things that are in transit/storageECPA/SCA

Can subpoena account subscriber information Internet search terms/email addresses

Need court order showing reasonable grounds Real time need TITLE III Stored Emails opened or unopened

Opened Emails No PC subpoena Unopened (>180 days) No PC subpoena Unopened (<180 days) need Warrant based probable cause

D. 5th Amendment

Immunity Use Derivative Use (is enough for Constitutional Protection) Transactional Total

Page 11 of 22


5th Right against Self-Incrimination What does it protect?

Testimony Immunity Levels

Use - testimony Derivative - leads Transactions - the matter itself Total - anything

Hitchcock 1892 - 754

Can the govt force testimony with just use immunity Court suggests transactions immunity is needed

Brown 1896 - 757 Aspects of dignity

Three Variables1. The policies that inform the privilege2. The appropriate scope of the privilege in the light of policies3. The extent necessary to satisfy those policies

Ulmann 760 If testified, the employer may fire/other state agency action Immunity does not need to be granted if job is threatened No, its about potential use in criminal case, it was not the government

compellingKastigar 762

Is use immunity enough? Or derivative use? The govt must prove that it got the info from an independent source, and

by no way assisted by immunized testimony

Elements of a 5th amendment claim:1. Compulsion

Physical Violence Legal/Contempt Order Threats Loss of Job - Loss of Livelihood

Garrity v. NJ Loss of job if invoked 5th was compulsion

Spevack v. Klein Threat of disbarment was compulsion

Olman Fear of losing job Does not implicate compulsion/incrimination

Threats less comfortable conditions McKune v. Lile

Reduction in privileges Did not constitute compulsion (for a prisoner in a rehabilitation

program)

Page 12 of 22


2. Criminal Case (incrimination) i. You can never compel a witness to disclose a necessary or essential part of

a crime a link in the chain Evidence that could be used in turn

Innocent Witness? Ohio v. Reiner

babysitter Fifth amendment applies to innocent If not de facto confession

Anything a suspect says or only confession? Burr's Trial 753

Not only item that is useful, but you get to judge it Ohio v. Reihner

Leinient standard of defendants belief that what is said would be used agaisnt them

Civil Penalty Us. v. Ward 775

Was not going to be criminally prosecuted Subject to civil penalty not protected

Allen v. Illinois 778 Court concluded it was civil penalty not criminal State's assertion of its civil nature

Outside criminal setting (civil deposition)? Couselman v. Hitchcock 755

Can refuse, it is about the consequences Chaves v. Martinez 780

Police asking for your name? Hiibel v. Sixth Dist. Of Nev.

Not protected Not based on incrimination Fear of consequences may lead to protection

3. Witness against self (testimonial) i. Relate a factual assertion or disclose information

Contentii. It purports to communicate a deliberate command

Disclosure of use of the mind - Difference between handing over keys and disclosing combination

Schmerber v. Calif Blood Draw Non-testimonial - no privilege

Doe v. US 781 Signature on consent to disclose

Page 13 of 22


held that court order compelling target of grand jury investigation to authorize foreign banks to disclose records of his accounts, without identifying those documents or acknowledging their existence

does not violate target's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

It is a legal act or consent to release, not a factual assertion Doe was not required to acknowledge or produce documents

Penn v. Muniz 784 1) slurred nature of defendant's answers to police questions given

before he received his Miranda warning was not testimonial, within scope of privilege against self-incrimination;

(2) answer to question regarding date of his sixth birthday was testimonial and inadmissible;

Cruel Trilemma Test: Confess Perjury Contempt

Hubbell v. US 801 Act of selection and production in response to broad document

subpoena Hubbell asserts his 5th A right Significant use of mind to compile the requested documents

Was not a foregone conclusion

A. Exceptions to the 5th Corporations

Hale v. Henkel Corporations do not have privilege

Brasswell v. US Must serve the company, not an individual in a corporation

Government may compel testimonial incriminating statements if for a civil regulation, non-criminal law enforcement purposeShaperio v. US

Required records; are not protectedMarchetti v. US

Gambling Records; are protected - not requiredCalifornia v. Byers

Traffic safety regulation Uphold stop and identify statute Person in accident must identify themselves

Similar to road block cases; proactive administrative regulatory safety reason

Baltimore SS v. Bouknight Child services regulation Upheld production of child

Same affect as Byers

Page 14 of 22


5. Police Interrogation and Miranda:

1. Rule of Exclusion2. Pre-Requisite of Custodial Interrogation

1. Custody2. Interrogation

3. Specific Warnings Required4. Waiver/Cessation Possible

Suspect must invoke Must be unambiguous Statements made after warning were made Knowing and Intelligently

Edwards:1. Once right to counsel is asserted the police may not initiated further

interrogationA. Custody - typically more restrictive than a seizure

a. Orozco v. Tx Functional definition

b. Berkemer v. McCarty Traffic stop Like a terry stop, mere seizure

c. Minnesota v. Murphy Probation interview Not in custody No formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement associated

with formal arrestB. Interrogation

a. RI v. Innis Questioning or its functional equivalent Statements made would likely induce an incriminating response

C. When is custodial Interrogation not custodial interrogation? a. Illinois v. Perkins

Undercover cop plans jailbreak Questions suspect Suspect confesses about wet work Answer was given voluntarily No atmosphere of coercion

D. Invoking Miranda Rights Different crimes re-mirandize and re-invocation of rights Right to silence is respected, even if for a time being Counsel cannot be satisfied until counsel is furnished Person may self-initiate and waive rights Right to Silence

Michigan v. Moswley Assertion of right to silence 2 hours Different officers, different crime

Page 15 of 22


b. Right to Counsel Edwards v. Arizona

Request to counsel Questioning ceased Next day re-questioned

Edwards v. Arizona Want an Attorney before deal is invocation

Connecticut v. Barret Agrees to talk, but wont make written statement without counsel No full general invocation

Davis v. US Maybe I should talk to a lawyer

Must be an unequivocal request for a lawyer

E. Post Edwards1. Expanding of Edwards

i. Arizona v. Roberson - Other Crimes Suspect invokes counsel Interrogation of new crime Right to counsel is not crime specific

ii. Minnick v. Miss. - Lawyer Involvement Invokes right to counsel Lawyer leaves Cops re-initiate questioning Right to counsel during any questioning, not mere

iii. Maryland v. Shatzer - Duration 14 day or more break in custody

Facts of case was return to general prison population Can re-Mirandize Suspect must re-assert right

2. Contracting of Edwardsi. Davis v. US - Invocation

Must be an unambiguous request for counselii. Oregon v. Bradshaw - Suspect Initiated

Suspect, after asserting right, suspect asks what is going to happen now

Police conversation ensues, leads to interrogation Suspect initiated and opened the door

F. Valid Miranda Waiver

a. NC v. Butler - Wrighting Does not have to be in writing

b. Edwards v. Ariz. - Voluntary or Knowingly and Voluntary Does mere consent apply Must be knowing and intelligent

c. Colorado v. Springs - Full Disclosure of Crimes

Page 16 of 22


Knowing and Intelligent does not require check list of crimes You must know what the warnings mean

d. Moran v. Burbine - may police Lie about evidence Lawyer is retained by suspects sister Lawyer calls, Police interrogate Defendant has right to counsel, not vice versa Ok for police to misrepresent

e. Frazier v. Cupp - Can the Police Lie Police can lie about the evidence

f. Berghuis v. Tompkins - Implied Waiver Can you have a knowing and intelligent implied waiver Suspect does not confirm that he understands the warnings Must be an express waiver

E. 6th Amendment Right to Counsel

Elements of 6th Amendment Violation1. Charge - Initiation of Adversarial Judicial Proceedings2. Deliberate elicitation by PoliceA. When does it apply?

Massiah v. US Guy posts bail after invoking counsel Wired informant- deliberate elicitation of information Was a violation of 6th

Brewer v. Williams Applies after initiation of judicial proceeding

Fellers v. US Cops go to home and begin questioning

Deliberate elicitation of information from the suspect

You don’t have to affirmatively invoke right to 6th amendment Rogthgery v. Gillespie County

Attaches at the initiation of adversarial judicial proceedings Even if prosecutor does not know, arrest warrant is down the pipe

B. Waiver Standards:1. Voluntary

Schnecklove 4th Amendment

2. Knowing and Intelligent Burbine Knew what you were waiving Miranda and 6th Amendment

Maine v. Moulton

Officers said they were going to ask about other crimes

Page 17 of 22


Guy talks about crimes for which he was charged Intent does not matter

McNeil v. Wisconsin First Robbery Second Robbery Ok,

Texas v. Cobb Charged with Burglary, involved Murder Can cops ask about murder

Yes Despite the fact the crimes are intertwined, you can still ask about different

crimesUS v. Burguest

State drug charge - State Statute Federal drug charge - Fed Statute Despite the fact the crimes are intertwined, you can still ask about different

crimes

Question Miranda 6th Amendment

1. Custody Required close to formal arrest

Does not have to be in custody - only that judicial proceeding be initiated

2. Know Questions by Police

Undercover OK, voluntary (not inherently coercive)

Knowledge does not matter as long as there is a charge and deliberate elicitation

3. Ask for Lawyer for right to attach

Suspect must make a clear and unambiguous invocation

4. May suspect waive the right without knowledge or consent of a lawyer

Miranda waives 5th and 6th

5. May police ask about crimes which suspect is not charged?

Not OK - Roberson Tied to the Offense

E. Limits on the Exclusionary Rule:

1. Standing (Usually applicable in 4th) Ability for the court to recognize that you have a wrong that may or may

not be needed to be protected. Jones v. US

Guy visiting another's apartment

Page 18 of 22


Target Rule - target of investigation has standing Chapmand v. US

Tenant in apartment Renter has protection in own room/apartment

Rakas v. Ill Someone else's car, someone else's shotgun (glovebox/under seat

search) Whether D had reasonable expectation of privacy Was not his car, therefore he did not have expectation of privacy nor

did he have standing US v. Payner

Someone else's briefcase (offshore banker) Tax case, court looking for evidence of offshore bank account Took offshore guy out to dinner and copied briefcase Used it to prosecute Payner Payner's space was not invaded, he had no expectation of privacy in

the space of the briefcase or the contents Minnesota v. Olsen

The overnight guest in someone else's apartment Overnight guests have an expectation of privacy

Minnesota v. Carter The 2-hour crack bagging operation in someone else's apt. There was no legitimate expectation of privacy

a. Rehnquisti. There was no expectation of privacy

b. Scaliai. Privacy of individual's own home is sacred

c. Kennedyd. Breyer

i. Katz testii. Reasonable expectation of privacy?

iii. Police in lawful positione. Ginsburg (dissent)

i. Property rights to include some and exclude othersii. Erodes the home owner's expectation of privacy

some social guests who are not necessarily overnight guests have reasonable expectation of privacy

Rawlings v. Kentucky Ownership is a consideration Expectations of Privacy Social Guests/Borrower/Invitee

2. Deterrence and Good FaithEroding of the Exclusionary ruleWeeks v. US

Exclusionary applicable in federalMapp v. Ohio

Page 19 of 22


Exclusionary applicable in stateLeon v. US

Mistaken reliance on magistrate's warranti. We shouldn't penalize the police for the mistake of the Magistrate

ii. Good faith reliance on judges warrantHerring v. US

Mistaken reliance on police database Officer kept poor records on whether or not an arrest warrant was in place Another officer arrested based on that bad record

i. Bad faith, we don’t want cops relying on mistakes of other copsHudson v. Michigan

No exclusionary remedy for Knock and announce violationi. that a violation of the Fourth Amendment requirement that police officers

knock, announce their presence, and wait a reasonable amount of time before entering a private residence (the knock-and-announce requirement) does not require suppression of the evidence obtained in the ensuing search.

Kansas v. Ventris Impeach with statement made in violation of D's 6A right to counsel Integrity of the system was key, we do not want to allow a D to defraud

the Courti. Elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, were admissible to impeach

his inconsistent testimony at trial 3. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

Wong Sun v. US Informant implicates Toy Toy statement about Yee Yee leads to Wong Sung Wong Sung arrested Get post release statement

What is Admissible1. Toy statements in bedroom

Against Toy: Unlawful entry, unlawful arrest (lack of PC) Fruit of Poisonous tree

Against Wong Sun: Hearsay

2. Heroin found at Yee Only found heroin as a result of Toy's statements

Against Toy: Narcotics were come by the exploitation of Toy Illegality Toy had a previous privacy expectation that was violated

Against Wong Sun: Admissible: no rights violated, no standing Wong had no Privacy expectation

3. Wong Sun's post arrest Statement?

Page 20 of 22


Against Wong Sun Admissible Voluntarily went to the police, Broke chain of illegality

Us v. Ceccolini Suspected gambling activity Cop illegally searched an envelope Fails proximate cause

Murray v. US Cops survey warehouse, enter before warrant Put surveillance up, then got warrant Cops might win because they would have independently gotten a warrant

As long as they did not submit illegally acquired evidence As long as the illegally acquired evidence was the reason for the

warrantBranches of the Causation Tree

But for Causation Independent sources, inevitable discovery

Proximate causation Attenuation and dissipation

Standing Intentional illegal search (someone else's privacy) Evidence not suppressed

Poisonous tree Legal search (but result of prior illegal search) Evidence suppressed

Missouri v. Seibert 2x interrogation strategy One without warning, statement gotten Then Mirandize and get statements again1. Inadmissible - FoPT

Deliberate effort to thwart Miranda's purpose Did the D actually believe they would have a real choice to stop talking

Oregon v. Elstad Brief/Accidental custodial violation Second statement made post Miranda were admissible

Not FoPTUS. v. Patane

Cops go into apartment Statement given, leads to physical evidence Miranda Warning was not given1. Admissible

Special rule: no Miranda violation, statements were not used Deterrence of inherent coercion is lacking with material evidence

US v. Ghailani Was it wrong to exclude key witness

Page 21 of 22


Witness was found only as a result of the involuntary interrogation of the Defendant

Ordinary FoPT

Page 22 of 22

Documents

Criminal Procedure (Investigative) Outline