资源描述
Criminal ProcedureProfessor SchafferFall 2003 Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment Doctrine3Fourth Amendment: Overview3Defining Searches and Seizures3Katz, 1967: REOP test.3The Warrant Requirement:5Probable Cause5 Aguilar-Spinelli 2-prong Test:6 Gates:. Replaced with totality of circumstances.6 Probable Cause to Arrest: .7What can warrant allow? Probable Cause, Specificity and Reasonableness7 Execution of the Warrant7 Arrests and Warrants8Arrests in the Home Payton.8Material Witnesses9Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement9Stop and Frisk9 Terry9Terry Protective Frisks11.Stops vs. Arrests = Brief and Limited Detentions12Power of Arrests13Search Incident to Arrest (SITA)14Plain View and Plain Touch Seizures (more exceptions to warrant requirement)15Automobiles and Movable Property15Exigent Circumstances16Administrative Searches and Special Needs Doctrine16Consent Searches18Wiretapping19Exclusionary Rule19Independent Source Doctrine21Inevitable Discovery: The Hypothetical Independent Source22Good Faith Exception: Leon22Self Incrimination and Confessions: Fifth Amendment Doctrine23When Privilege Can Be Asserted24What is compulsion? What is compelled testimony?24Testimonial vs. Non-Testimonial Evidence24Documents. . 25Immunity25Waiver of Privilege26Confessions26Due Process: Voluntariness Test prior to 196426Miranda27Massiah27Limited Miranda Right to Counsel:27Exclusionary Rule Under Miranda:28Custody for Miranda purposes29Interrogation29Waiver of Miranda - WW29Invocation and Initiation - WIIW30Sixth Amendment Doctrine31Sixth Amendment and Confessions31Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel vs. Fifth Amendment Right to Counsel32Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel33Strickland: Standards of Competency: Performance and Prejudice33Grand Juries35Evidence before the GJ37Discovery37Prosecutors Constitutional Duty to Disclose38Guilty Pleas38Must be VKI39Withdrawal of Guilty Pleas40Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt41Jury Trial42Cross-sectionality - Selecting the Venire43Voir Dire Requirements questioning the petit jury43Challenges for Cause44Peremptory Challengesno Const. rt.44Search and Seizure: Fourth Amendment DoctrineThe 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.Fourth Amendment: Overview1. Components of 4Aa. “The People”: Verdugo-Urquidez 4th Amendment does not apply to aliens in foreign countries. Unclear if aliens in US are protected.2. Reasonableness Clause and Warrant Clausea. General rule: Searches and seizures are presumed to be unreasonable without a warrant but under certain exception only need reasonableness.b. Probable Clause (PC): minimum needed for warrant or warrant-less searches.c. Which is the primary: reasonableness vs. warrant clause?d. Prof Salzburg thinks warrant clause is paramount. Thinks that all searches without warrants are presumptively unreasonable, subjected only to a few well-delineated exceptions. 3. Seizure = “meaningful interference with possessory interests”Defining Searches and Seizures1. Application of the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment does not apply to activity that is not determined by the court to be either a search or a seizure. Furthermore, reasonable searches and seizures are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.2. Trespass/property rights doesnt determine whether government action is S/S!3. Katz, 1967: Establishes (in Harlens concurrence) REOP test. REOP in telephone booth onto which FBI electronically eavesdropped w/o warrant (cops had PC to get warrant). Court drew a distinction between what a person knowingly exposes to the public, which is unprotected, and what he seeks to preserve as private, which is protected. REOP test: 1- Did defendant have an actual (subjective) EOP? 2- Is that EOP objectively reasonable? DISSENT: words arent “persons, houses, papers, etc.” 4. Post-Katz Jurisprudence.a. General analysis for a S/S to have occured (otherwise 4A inapplicable):i. Individual must take affirmative steps to protect privacy interests1. no REOP (thus no search) in what you knowingly expose to the public or is in plain view or is abandoned2. NO REOP in illegal activity. Place3. Voluntarily conveying information or property to a third party assumes risk that latter individual will turn over to govt. or is a govt. agentii. Degree of intrusion caused by police1. physical intrusion?2. how much extra information is exposed to the police? Is search limited to illegal material?3. what was the mode of intrusion?b. Open Fields:i. Oliver no REOP in open fields (bright-line rule). Expansive definition of open field (locked gate, “no trespassing” sign). Idea that even if D had subjective EOP, society says not legitimate. 1. Trespass doctrine irrelevantii. Exception for curtilage = area immediately surrounding the house:1. Dunn factors: proximity to home, in enclosure surrounding home?; nature of use; steps taken to protect privacyc. Parties to transaction: If member of public has access, cops should have access.i. Consensual Surveillance White, No REOP in phone conversation if other party records (is REOP, per Katx, if 3rd party records). 1. Assumption of risk!ii. Bank Records: Shultz banks reporting requirements ok, banks are partiesiii. Pen Registers Smith, phone company knows dialed numbersiv. Pagers No REOP when you leave your number in a pager, but yeas REOP for person in possession of pager; activation of pager=search. d. Trash, Greenwood, no REOP in trash left on the curb. 1. The possibility that someone else could invade REOP is enough to destroy it + abandonment + giving to garbage men. 2. Dissent trash scavenging isnt socially acceptable; defendant has no choice, had take out the trashii. Lower courts: no REOP even if it isnt on curb, even if its shredded.e. Aerial Surveillancei. Ciraolo - D who had erected 10 foot fence around backyard did not have REOP where airspace accessible to publicii. Dow Chemical no REOP even though govt used high-tech cameraiii. Riley, no REOP since public could legally hover in helicopter like cops did. OConnors concurrence: test should be whether public ordinarily had access, not whether legally possible. f. Bags in Transit: Bond, squeezing bag in compartment above passenger on Greyhound is a search because physical touch is more invasive than visual surveillance, especially since touching was done in exploratory mannerg. Dog Sniffsi. Dog sniffs are not a search because they only disclose criminal activity and are non-intrusive.ii. However, even if a dog alerts, a search of the individual alerted to will constitute a search, needs PC. iii. BUT pot-sniffing dog outside apartment = search (great REOP in home)iv. Since have no REOP in illegal activity, chemical testing is not a search. it is a seizure but so de minimus that reasonable w/o warrant. Jacobsenh. Sensory Enhancementsi. NOTE: naked eye surveillance is not a search (i.e. looking in windos if blinds are down).ii. Kyllo (2001) Ct held use of infrared technology on a house in effort to determine whether homeowner was growing marijuana to be a search. 1. search provides info about interior of the home; bright-line rule that all details in the home were intimate (idea that dont know what you will get before you see it).2. Dissent argued that heat was emanating from the house and therefore didnt reveal the contents of the house. iii. CF. Dow Chemical high-tech camera in aerial surveillance not search iv. Knotss: tracking movement from container in vehicle not a searchv. Karo: agents installed beeper inside ether can to be transported to suspect, so his movements could be monitored. No 4A rights implicated. vi. Taborda (2d Cir)- use of telescope to look in an apt window is a search, invaded REOPvii. Brown- flashlight into darkened car not a searchi. REOP in Certain Placesi. No REOP in prison cell never a search!ii. Can have REOP in schools5. Investigation by Private Citizensa. Language of 4A regulates state actors; private citizens action not a search. b. Burdeau: stolen private papers are admissible since thieves werent cops.c. BUT if citizen acting as government agent it is a search. d. Jacobsen: after private citizen finds evidence; cop can reopen the package because :later intrusion is to the same effect;” no new discovery.The Warrant Requirement:1. Basic idea with many exceptions!: S/S w/o warrants are presumptively unconstitutional. 2. A warrant needs to be based on probable cause and be particular 3. Function of Warrant Requirementa. Check against unfettered police discretion, inferences from evidence drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate.” Johnson (1948). i. Protects innocents from being harassed; proof requirement protects against unjustified searches and seizuresii. Controls police discretioniii. Creates record without having to make hindsight-affected determinationiv. Particularity requirement prevents excessive intrusion and protects privacy, controls scope of investigationb. Criticism: in reality, magistrates rubber stamp everythingProbable Cause1. Probable cause is a question of how much certainty police must have before they take action. It is less than a preponderance of the evidence. a. Q: how does probable cause differ from reasonableness? Does it only apply to warrant applications or is it implied in reasonableness test of police action?i. Arrests without probable cause are almost always unreasonableii. Warrantless searches and seizures without probable cause are almost always unreasonable.2. Determining Probable Causea. Basic analysis: It is the job of the magistrate to look at the information presented and to determine whether probable cause exists based on the information alone. The information must be sufficiently supported that the magistrate can follow it backwards to some kind of meaningful source or event. b. Definition of Probable Cause:i. Searches: Is there a fair probability that the area or object searched contains evidence of a crime?ii. Arrests: Is there a fair probability that person arrested has committed a crime?c. Magistrates needs to determine if the info provided is enough to get to PC. If cop have first-hand knowledge the only questions is whether there is enough evidence (assume cops are credible). But if info is from an informant.d. Aguilar-Spinelli Test: Spinelli facts: NO PC where affidavit stated long list of relatively innocent activities + statement that reliable informant had told cop that Spinelli was a bookmaker since informant wasnt trustworthy and cops conclusory statement didnt indicate basis of info i. V, veracity. Is informant reliable?1. Corroboration can rectify lack of info about reliabilitya. Draper corroboration must be predictive, so as to indicate that informant is privy to special information2. past record of reliable information relevant but unclear degree3. Consider whether informant is paid. ii. BK, basis of knowledge1. is knowledge first-hand?2. If informants info is old = staleness problem,iii. If pass V + BK, then ask whether evidence passes PC threshold e. Gates: departed from rigid two-prong A-S test. Replaced with totality of circumstances. Likely magistrates will still examine both prongs.i. Facts: Police received anonymous letter accusing couple of selling drugs and describing their MO (involving elaborate travel arrangements to Florida.) Letter also claimed that on X date D would be returning with lots of drugs. Police verified letter which was mostly correct but incorrect about some details; police got warrant & searched car.ii. Problem: anonymous letter failed Aguilar test. There was no guarantee of V or very much BK. The predicted behavior wasnt really sufficiently corroborative to cure the defect.iii. Holding: V and BK are relevant but not necessary. Not separate elements; deficiency in one can be made up for by excess of the other.f. Post-Gates: need less corroboration to shore up tip.i. E.g. Peyko: anonymous tip said D received weekly drug deliveries from Fed Ex; confirm that D used Fed Ex frequently. PC even though only corroborated complete innocent activity!ii. Upton: More TOC informant described stolen goods, knew about raid, and provided motive for anonymity, completely rejected 2-prong test iii. Other Types of Informants1. “Citizen Informants” have a presumption of reliability (as long as they are identified) because little chance of fabrication2. Confession of co-participant without corroboration = PC g. How much evidence = probable cause?i. “Fair probability” test does information provide a fair probability that acts have been committed or that evidence will be found where sought?1. Less than preponderance but more than bare suspicionii. Case-by-case test, totality of the circumstancesiii. Test is subjective: did this officer, have enough information on the scene to believe any crime has occurred? Prandy-Binnett h. Probable Cause to Arrest: is there probable cause to believe individual committed a crime? Unlike PC for search dont need evidence on D now.i. Faulty descriptions: description of perpetrator needs to be specific for PC cannot be solely race of D. ii. If there is PC BUT person arrested isnt perpetrator, no 4A violation (hence evidence of another crime found is admissible). i. Staleness: No PC if info is stale, but circumstance-dependent, evidence of long-term conspiracy may imply continuing criminal conduct. Harris.j. Substantial Basis standard of review: Highly deferential standard of review f or search warrants; but, warrantless cases are reviewed de novo for probable cause.3. What can warrant allow? Probable Cause, Specificity and Reasonablenessa. What can be searched for or seized? Pre-Hayden only “fruits and instrumentalities” not “mere evidence”(e.g. can seize bong, not phone records). i. Hayden overruled this: Ok to seize Haydens clothing which tied him to the robbery as long as there is a nexus between the items to be seized and criminal behavior. Govt needt rely on unpersuasive property interests.b. Where to search? Only can search home if its linked to the criminal activity i. Ok to search premises of 3rd party for evidence against D, Stanford Daily ii. Generally reticent to allow search of attorneys office for evidence against client, but if business records are kept in office search ok.iii. Reasonable Particularity Requirement: where warrant authorized search of 3rd floor apt, based on belief that there was only 1, discovery of evidence (before realized mistake) in other 3rd floor apt admissible. Garrison. 1. Wrong address may not eliminate PC, based on reasoanbleness.iv. Evans: cops can search anywhere that is large enough to contain the evidence sought (i.e. cant look in oven for hippo).1. Does search of premises allow search of garage too? Yes.2. Can you search property of other folks on premises? Yes, so long as property could contain items in warrant. c. Andresen: Is warrant that allows search for specific items, “together with other fruits and instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown” overly broad? NO.i. Not too general since evidence sought was paper (property fraud case) so hard to predict what evidence would look like (rummaging would happen just as it would with a very specific warrant). ii. Why is specificity important? Rummaging and controlling cops discretion; record of PC prior to the search. d. Severability: If ct found clause defective, it could have severed the offending clause and excluded only the evidence which was received through its authority. Critics say: incentive for cops to grab everything and have court work it out. e. Presumptively unreasonably warrants despite probable cause: RARE!i. Winston: warrant to perform unnecessary surgery to extract a bullet f. Anticipatory warrant issued allowing search if triggering event occurs. These are valid even though they transfer discretion from magistrate to cop.4. Execution of the Warranta. Knock-and-announce requirement: officers cannot just break-down door UNLESS “refused admittance” (i.e. door isnt opened near immediately)i. Exigency Exception: can enter unannounced if risk of harm or destruction of evidence (no per se exigency in felony drug cases).b. Destroyed property: Limited destruction of property ok for no-knock entry. c. Unnecessarily intrusive Searches: 2am raid of birthing clinic to see if nurse practicing medicine without license not reasonable. Hummel-Jonesd. When is search completed? Courts take liberal approach.e. No requirement to try to conduct search in present of occupant.f. Private citizen helping the search: Can force telephone company to install pen registers, NY Tel. Even better when assistance is voluntary. i. Media ride-alongs: Wilson: media observation of execution of arrest warrant in home violates 4A since not related to police objectives.g. Magistrate: must be neutral and detached; cannot rubber stamp warrant; dont need legal training (Shadwick); a magistrate doesnt have to give reasons. Arrests and Warrants 1. An arrest is seizure of person, taken into custody by lawful authority.2. If officer has PC (!) he can arrest without a warrant if there is reasonable belief that perp:a. committed felonyb. misdemeanor + fear of flight/chance of harm to self or otherc. committed misdemeanor in officers presence3. Is arrest permissible for even low-level misdemeanors? YES, Atwater, bright-line rule that custodial arrest is always reasonable if there is PC of a criminal violation. No requirement that the government demonstrate a need for an arrest as opposed to just asking a magistrate for a summons.4. Watson (1976) authorized an arrest without arrest warrant even though no exigent circumstances (cop had time to get warrant after had PC for arrest).a. Rationale: historical rule + dont want to burden law enforcement5. Force: a. Garner: cant use deadly force unless its necessary to prevent escape and PC of threat of injury dead. 4A violation when chased/killed fleeing non-violent felon. b. Graham all claims of (excessive) force must be reasonable. c. Forrester (9th Cir.) use of nonchakus against peaceful protesters not 4A violation since it was reasonable (Graham) cause not deadly force and legitimate interest in crowd dispersal with little injury. Cops dont have to use least painful method!d. Monday: police may use reasonable force (pepper spray), to take a person into custody for his own protection (he was depressed; concern about overdose).6. Gerstein Hearings: Protection Against Erroneous Warrantless Arrestsa. Suspects are entitled to prompt judicial determination of probable cause if they are arrested without a warrant.b. McLaughlin: Police must grant Gerstein hearing within 48 hours of arrest. If w/I 48 hours arrestee has burden of proving delay was unreasonable; otherwise cops have burden to prove exigency (weekends arent exigency).c. Davis (8th Cir.) 2 hour detention unreasonable where it used to gather evidence to get to PC or investigate suspects involvement n other crimes. d. Remed
展开阅读全文