criminal justice 103 Intro to Law & Justice
Moddy
Chapter6PowerPointHandout.pdf
2/6/2016
1
Criminal Procedure
Chapter 6
Criminal Procedure and Purpose
• Sets forth appropriate behavior for agents of state if they deprive individual of their liberty
• Derived from due process clause of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments – Tremendously important legal concept
• Procedural law is pendulum between due process and crime control models
• Procedural law attempts to balance goals of these two models
Sources of Criminal Procedure Law
• U.S. Constitution
• Bill of Rights – Particularly Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments
• Fourteenth Amendment
• State Constitution
• Federal and state statutes
• Supreme Court decisions
2/6/2016
2
Search and Seizure Law: The Warrant and Reasonableness Clauses
• Governed by in large part by Fourth Amendment
• Two main clauses: – Warrant clause
• All warrant must be based on probable cause
• Must describe person, place, or thing with particularity
– Reasonableness clause • Allows searches without warrants
• Probable cause and exigent circumstances must exist
Search and Seizure Law: Probable Cause
• Brinegar v. United States (1949) – Defined probable cause
• Illinois v. Gates (1983) – Probable cause is fluid concept
• Does not require absolute certainty or even great likelihood
• Similar to preponderance of evidence standard in civil trials
Search and Seizure Law: Arrest
• Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures
• Seizure – Exercise of dominion or control by police over a person or an item
– Is a broader term than arrest • Detention
– Occurs when reasonable person viewing particular police conduct as whole and within setting would conclude police had restrained their liberty so that they are not free to leave
2/6/2016
3
Search and Seizure Law: When an Officer May Arrest
• With a warrant
• If officer has probable cause
• If misdemeanors or felonies occur in presence of an officer or outside of a private dwelling
• Police may not make warrantless arrests in private dwelling unless there are exigent circumstances or they have consent to enter
Search and Seizure Law: Manner of Arrest
• May use whatever force is reasonable under circumstances
• Deadly force permitted only when necessary to protect life
• Knock and announce – Must announce presence and purpose
– Give occupant reasonable time to open door
– Rule may be ignored in certain circumstances
Search and Seizure Law: Types of Seizures
• May ask questions of anyone in public‐not an arrest or seizure – Citizens may ignore or walk away‐does not constitute probable cause
• “Seizure tantamount of arrest” – Requires more than mere suspicion, but not probable cause
– Traffic stops – Stop and frisks on street
2/6/2016
4
Search and Seizure Law: Stop and Frisk
• Terry v. Ohio (1968) • Requires reasonable suspicion based on experience
– Less demanding than probable cause
• Stop – Must be temporary and no longer than necessary under circumstances
• Frisk – If stop does not allay officer fears – Pat‐down of outer clothing – Officer may not manipulate items felt in order to discern what they are
Search and Seizure Law: Vehicle Stops
• Seizure occurs whenever a vehicle is stopped
• Must have at least reasonable suspicion – Except certain roadblocks
• May ask driver and passengers to exit
• May request documentation such as VIN and ask other questions
• May seek consent searches
Search and Seizure Law: Searches
• Defined
• Katz v. United States (1967) – Court created reasonable expectation of privacy
– Fourth Amendment applies only to such places
• Reasonable expectation of privacy – Subject of search must have a subjective expectation of privacy
– Society must view that expectation as reasonable
2/6/2016
5
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement
• Search Incident to Arrest – Chimel v. California (1969) – Only applies if arrest is made – “Lunge area”
• Consent – Must be both voluntary and intelligent – Must be limited to both time and area – Requires proper authority to consent
• Co‐occupants present • Co‐occupants not present
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Vehicles
• Carroll v. United States (1925) • Lessened expectation of privacy when in public
• To search without warrant: – Must demonstrate probable cause exists – Must establish vehicle is mobile
• Search incident to arrest after arrestee is secured not permitted unless search is for evidence relating to arrest
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Vehicles
• Inventory searches limited to protection of property of arrestee – Warrantless is okay so long as they are routine and not done as pretext
• Surveillance and monitoring of vehicles permitted on open road – Not permitted when vehicle is in private dwelling
• Installation of tracking devices on vehicle in public area not permissible without search warrant – Installation constitutes a tresspass
2/6/2016
6
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Plain View
• Harris v. United States (1968) – Objects subject to seizure if they are in plain view of officer who has legal right to be in position to see them
• Not actually an exception – Instance in which it does not apply
• Court has retreated from requirement that observations must be “inadvertent”
• Item must be immediately apparent as contraband
• Police may use tools to aid in their observation
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement: Open Fields
• Defined – Misleading term
– Curtilage
• Do not fall under protection of Fourth Amendment
• May be achieved while trespassing
• Aerial surveillance permitted
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement
• Abandoned property – Not protected under Fourth Amendment – Depends on where property is abandoned and on intent of disposer
• Special needs of law enforcement – Also know as administrative searches – Applied in cases that are mixture of criminal investigation and conduct by other public agencies
– Probationers/parolees
2/6/2016
7
Right to the Assistance of Counsel
• Specifically enumerated in Constitution • Originally interpreted as those who wanted and could afford counsel, could not be denied
• Powell v. Alabama (1932) – Due process requires appointment of attorney at government’s expense for indigent defendants facing capital charges
• Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) – Made right applicable to all federal felony cases
Right to the Assistance of Counsel
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Applied previous cases to states
• Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) – Extending right to any indigent defendant facing incarceration for felony or misdemeanor
• Possible sentence of more than six months
Right to Counsel During Interrogations and Pretrial Identification Procedures
• Fifth Amendment provides protections against self‐incrimination – Can be permitted if it is voluntary
• Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
– Suspect must be informed of rights before custodial interrogation
– Court set forth what police should say • Miranda warnings
2/6/2016
8
Miranda Rights
• Right to remain silent
• Anything defendant says can be used against him/her in court
• Right to have attorney present during questioning
• If they cannot afford one, one will be appointed for them prior to any questioning
When Miranda Applies
• Custody – When suspect has been subject to formal arrest or equivalent restraints on freedom of movement
– Free to leave test
• Interrogation – Police ask questions the answers to which may incriminate
– In circumstances in which police, through actions, create “functional equivalent” of interrogation • Engage in activity they “should known is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from suspect”
When Miranda is NOT Required
• Routine traffic stops • Sobriety check points • Conversations between two officers in vicinity of suspect
• Voluntary statements without prompting • Routine questioning of persons at crime scene • Clarifying questions • Questions that are part of stop and frisk • Threat to public safety
2/6/2016
9
Extensions and Application of Miranda
• After Fifth Amendment evoked: – Police cannot question more unless suspect initiates communication
– Suspect cannot be questioned about other crimes unrelated to current offense
• Police need not let suspect know lawyer is waiting if acquired by family member
• Police posing as inmate
Extensions and Application of Miranda
• Requesting lawyer at bail hearing not considered invocation of right to counsel – Charges have not been filed yet
• If police obtain voluntary, but unwarned confession, they can remedy any confusion if they give proper Miranda warnings and obtain waiver of rights and then re‐obtain confession – Suspect does not need to know initial confession was inadmissible
Extensions and Application of Miranda
• Illegally obtained confession may be admitted at trial to impeach defendant’s testimony
– Must sole be used to impeach testimony
• Miranda rights may be waived – Knowingly
– Intelligently
– Voluntarily
2/6/2016
10
Pretrial Identification Procedures
• Suspect has right to counsel at lineup if it occurs after criminal charges have been filed
– Constitutes critical stage in prosecution
– Potential for prejudicial error
• No right if lineup takes place prior to charges being filed
The Confrontation of Witnesses Clause
• Affords defense opportunity to test credibility of hostile witnesses – Prevents ex parte evidence
• Pointer v. Texas (1965) – Made confrontation clause obligatory to states
• Crawford v. Washington (2004) – Statements of absent witnesses may be admitted only when witness is unavailable or if defense had prior opportunity to cross‐examine
– Unavailable‐Witness demonstrably unable to testify in person
– Does not guarantee right to face‐to‐face confrontation
The Right to Compulsory Process Clause
• Defendants have right to compel favorable witnesses to appear in court to testify on their behalf
• Must show proposed witnesses’ testimony and/or evidence is relevant and that such testimony would not be cumulative
• Washington v. Texas (1967) – Made compulsory process applicable to states – Co‐defendant’s testimony not sufficient for use by defense • Only prosecution
2/6/2016
11
The Exclusionary Rule
• Any evidence obtained by government in violation of Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in criminal trial for purposes of proving guilt
• Judicially created remedy for violations
Advancing Toward the Exclusionary Rule
• Boyd v. United States (1886)
• Adams v. New York (1904)
• Weeks v. United States (1914) – Birth of exclusionary rule
– Only applied to federal government
– Led to issue of silver platter doctrine
• Nardone v. United States (1939)
Advancing Toward the Exclusionary Rule
• Wolf v. Colorado (1949) – Applied exclusionary rule to states
– Left enforcement up to states
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – Fully applied exclusionary rule to states
– State failed to provide adequate remedies for violations committed by state police
2/6/2016
12
Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule
• Court has held rule does not in civil and grand jury investigation
• Number of lower courts have concluded rule does not ply to probation and parole revocation hearings
• Illegally obtained evidence can be used in criminal trial for purposes of impeaching defendant’s testimony
Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule
• Rakas v. Illinois (1978) – In order to claim Fourth Amendment protection, defendant must have standing
– Person has right to bring legal action by virtue of being personally harmed
• Independent source exception – Evidence may be admitted if knowledge of that evidence is gained from source entirely independent from source tainted by illegality
Curtailing the Exclusionary Rule
• Attenuation exception – Illegally obtained evidence admissible if there is less than clear causal connection between illegal police action and evidence
• United States v. Leon (1984) – Good faith exception
• Nix v. Williams (1984) – Inevitable discovery exception
