Criminal Procedure Cases
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Weeks v. US
- can't search a house w/o warrant
- Olmstead v. US
- phones aren't in 4th am, no search/seizure (listening isn't tangible)
- Katz v. US
- Test- subjective expec of privacy that society considers reas; 4th protects people and places
- CA v. Greenwood
- no reas expec of privacy in curbside trash bags b/c held it out to the public
- US v. Karo
- monitoring beeper in location not open to visual surveillance violates 4th am b/c it reveals critical fact about interior of premises; reas exp of priv in home
- FL v. Riley
- no reas exp of priv 400ft above house b/c plain view by anybody legally travelling at that height
- Kyllo v. US
- test- can't use sensor/enhancing technology no in general public use to get info-only obtainable thru physical entry
- MN v. Carter
-
business visitors will normally not have standing against uncon searches
factors: length of time, commercial, relationship - US v. Verdugo-Urquidez
- 4th am doesn't apply to actions by US officials that takes place in a foreign country and involves a foreign national
- US v. White
- bugging an informant doesn't violate 4th b/c D's expectation is that it may not be private -sig. risk
- US v. Place
- RAS can justify temporary seizure of package.
- IL v. Caballes
- no legitimate privacy interest in criminal activity. dog only detects drugs.
- Franks v. DL
- informant's info not subject to challenge. cop's statement subject to challenge. 3 req for invalidity: falsehood, intent'l/reckless, material
- US v. Banks
- after knocking, cops only need wait a short period of time. can then barge in to protect their safety, destruction of ev
- Muehler v. Mena
- can detain people while search is on
- Mincey v. AZ
- "murder scene exception": security sweep of murder scene is OK to make sure no peiople, dangerous weapons.
- Welsh v. WI
- Minor offenses do not provide suff ev to justify warrantless entry into a hom. Only act as broadly as emergency calls for.
- IL v. McArthur
- Warrantless serach is "reas" b/c not longer than needed to get W, and in interest of preserving ev. (supplants emergency exc w/reas
- AZ v. Hicks
- Cops can observe what's in PV from a legal viewpt. Can't move objects
- Carroll v. US
- Exigency of car's mobility justifies warrantless serach of car
- Chambers v. Maroney
- Can subsequently search car at police station b/c could've legally done it on street (safer).
- US v. Chadwick
- "container doctrine": for parcells/packages need a W; even if contact w/trunk of car.
- Senders
- Should've stopped package before taxi and gotten warrant. need warrant now that in moving car (overruled by Acevedo)
- US v. Ross
- If PC to serach car, search may extend to any part of car and any packages that might contain the object of the search.
- CA v. Acevedo
- Can seize bag in car w/o warrant if PC, even if no PC for rest of car.
- Wyoming v. Houghton
- Search extends to passenger's packages b/c passenger has reduced expec of priv in other car.
- US v. Robinson
- Cops can serach person as thoroughly as possible during arrest.
- Chimel v. CA
- After arrest, can serach person and "area around him w/in his immediate control."
- MD v. Buie
- Can't search whole house during arrest, but can do protective sweep for accomplices.
- NY v. Belton
- After arrest, cops can search passenger compartment: everywhere w/in wingspan of person in vehicle, even if person no longer in vehicle.
- Thornton v. US
- Can search car if "recently" left it b/c exigent circum- safety, destruction of ev.
- Knowles v. Iowa
- No car erach if no arrest (traffic violation).
- Co v. Bertine
- Suspicionless inventory searches are okay for impounded vehicles + objects.
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
- Consent is based on "voluntariness" given totality of circum (this case: no duress, coercion)
- OH v. Robinette
- Totality of cirum: unrealistic to force cops to tell people they're free to go before getting consent.
- US v. Drayton
- Consent valid of bus search even though not told don't have to consent. (totality)
- US v. Watson
- Dont need warrant for felony arrest in public.
- Atwater v. Lago Vista
- Misdemeanor + in cop's presence = no W necessary
- Terry v. OH
- Cops can stop person for less than PC using knowledge and experience. Can reas frisk for safety. Later courts = RAS.
- Dunaway v. NY
- If person brought to station + detained for questioning, need more than RAS; need PC
- FL v. Royer
- Stop turns into arrsest by moving suspect (need PC).
- US v. Sharpe
- Stop v. Arrest: cts look at duration, degree of intrusion, amt of force.
- FL v. JL
- Uncorroborated anonymous tip insufficient to justify stop + frisk (no RAS). innocent facts.
- FL v. Bostick
- Consensual encounter": consider totality of circ to det whether reas person would feel free to disregard cops and go about their business.
- Spinelli v. US
- For PC on informant tip, need reliability, basis for knowledge (character of corroboration).
- IL v. Gates
- Substitutes Spinelli req's w/ "totality of circ" approach (less than PC) looking at overall reliablity of a tip: a deficiency in one prong may be compensated by strong showing in another.
- AL v. White
- Can use tip for RAS from info by informant that's less reliable than for PC, but can use for RAS when tip about future behavior.
- IL v. Wardlow
- Unprovoked flight from cops in a hgih-crime area is sufficient for RAS + stop.
- US v. MArtinez-Fuerte
- Balancing test of gov't need v. privacy intrustion; substitute balancing test for PC.
- DE v. Prouse
- Cops can't randomly stop person's car to ceheck registration; need RAS or PC.
- MI dept of state police v. Sitz
- Checkpt program for sobriety is CON b/c (using balancing test for PC) + no police discretion.
- Indianapolis v. Edmond
- Can't set up chekpoints for purpose of general crime control.
- IL v. Lidster
- Can set up checkpt to gather info about earlier crime.
- Mapp v. OH
- DPC applies rth am to states; Excl rule implicit in concept of ordered liberty (overrules Wolf)
- Wong Sun v. US
- 1) where ev discovered b/c of initioal illegality, it's suppressed (but for). 2) if sufficiently removed form illegality, it's admissible.
- US v. Leon
- Excl rule doesn't apply when cops 1) act in good faith + 2) reas rely on W. Never been applied to warrantless searches, but does narrow excl rule.
- Scott
- Execution standard: reas use of min. procedures on wiretap is a low bar.
- Keith
- For electronic surv of a nat'l security domestic matter (in US, US threat), need W.
- Padilla v. Rumsfeld
- Can US arrest US citizen w/o 4h Am protections if he's agent of war?
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
- US citizen held as enemy combatant must be given meaningful opp to contest his detention.
- Rasul v. Bush
- Even non-citizens have some CON rights; grants district cts jxn over habeus corpus claims.
- Bram v. US
- Convession must be "voluntary"- gov't can't create hope/fear. Also, 5th Am regulates out of ct proceedings before crim proc takes place
- US v. Hurtado
- DP if long-established proc (can evolve over time). DP phrases: "shocks the consc" "fundamental fairness" "implicit in concept of ordered liberty"
- Brown v. MS
- If confession extorted thru brutality + violence, it's involuntary.
- CO v. Connelly
- Confession consdidered voluntary unless police coercion, no matter how irrational (crazy) the suspect's deicision to waive Miranda rights. Cops prove thru preponderance of ev.
- Powell v. AL
- "Scottsboro boy". If D needs it, state must provide counsel at "1st formal adverarial proceeding" (arraign/indict) and beyond. "special cirum rule" gov't has to find you a lawyer if difficult/special circ (this part later overruled/extended).
- Johnson v. Zerbst
- Waiver of Con right msut be 1) voluntary + 2) known relinquishment of that right. Also, if felony-- lawyer.
- Betts v. Brady
- DP didn't apply 6th Am to states.
- Gideon v. Wainwright
- Every D has right to atty by state in state proceedings (overrules Betts)
- Massiah v. US
- Right to atty at any "critical stage"- no intterrogation w/o lawyer. If 6th Am and confession, gov't must prove either 1) lawyer present, or 2) D waived right to lawyer.
- Escobedo v. IL
- Narrow! 6th Am can apply tprior to indictmet where interrogation + asked for and denied counsel, targeted suspect, counsel denied acces.
- Brewer v. Williams
- Implied waiver of 6th Am right is CON inadequate.
- MI v. Jackson
- Invocation of right ot atty only broken if waived while lawyer is there, unless D initiates conversation + cops get waiver.
- US v. Henry
- Gov't (informant) can't start conversation to elicit info.
- Kuhlmann
- Informant OK b/c passive, not initiating conversation.
- Maine v. Moulton
- Informant can ask about crimes not charged w/yet b/c 6th Am doesn't apply to them.
- Miranda v. AZ
- "custodial interrogation" is inherently coerced if not warned of rights. Proxy safeguards.
- Berkemer v. McCarthy
- Miranda warnings not req in routine encounters b/w motorists and cops. Brief and public.
- MN v. Murphy
- People already under gov't control (probation) have lower CON rights.
- RI v. Innis
- Interrogation is any words/actions cops know is reas likely to elicit info.
- Perkins v. IL
- Miranda protections don't appply if suspect doesn't perceive he's being questioned by gov't agent.
- AZ v. Fulminante
- Not all trickery OK. Gov't informant created DP problem w/overly coercive environment.
- PA v. Muniz
- Routine booking questions are not interrogation under Miranda. Anythign seeking testimonial answer is testimony. (slurred speech would be physical ev)
- NC v. Butler
- Valid waiver of 5th Am right can be implied from suspect's conduct. This case: chose oral instead of written.
- Moran v. Burbine
- No Miranda req to keep suspect informed of status of legal rep.
- Miller v. Fenton
- Pyschological trickery (false facts) is OK and doesn't invalidate waiver.
- MI v. Mossely
- Exception to right to reamin silent: sig time later, new miranda warnings, 2nd crime.
- Edwards v. AZ
- Any statement after invoking right to counsel is inadmissible unless counsel present or initates and waives.
- Davis v. US
- Must clearly + unequivaclly invoke 5th Am right to silence/counsel. if ambiguous/unclear, cops can continue questioning.
- Schermber v. CA
- Blood test iin custody Not Testimony b/c phys ev. Testimony test: truth, lie, silence (testimony).
- Hilibel v. 6th District Ct of NV
- Identifying yourself is not testimony.
- US v. Dickerson
- Miranda is Con rule taht applies to states. Too fundamental in society to overrule.
- NY v. Quarles
- Exception to Miranda: cops can use noncoercive (voluntary) questioning w/o Miranda warnings when reas prompted by a concern for public safety.
- NY v. Haris
- Even if invalid Miranda confession, it can still be used to impeach D.
- OR v. Elstad
- Proper Miranda confession is OK, even if afetr a Miranda=violated confession (so long as not coerced).
- MO v. Seibert
- 1st confession was egregiously manifpulated, therefore 2nd confession is FOPT b/c an intentional abuse of Miranda thru overt police coerciveness.
- Tucker v. MI
- FOPT for 5th Am violations doesn't apply to testimony from independently acting 3rd party.
- US v. Patare
- FOPT for 5th Am vilation doesn't apply to phys ev resulting form non-Miranda confession b/c phys ev is non-testimonial.
- Hester
- Open fileds are nto private
- US v. Oliver
- Reas expec of priv in curtilag.
- US v. Dunn
- Difference b/w curtilage + open fields: factors- 1) proximity to home, 2) whether area is w/in an enclosure surrounding the home, 3) nature of the areass uses, 4) steps taken to protect area from observation.
- AZ v. Roberts
- Right to counsel is more fundamental than right to silence.