CriminalProcedure+.docx

CriminalProcedure+.docx

《CriminalProcedure+.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《CriminalProcedure+.docx（31页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

CriminalProcedure+

CriminalProcedure

ProfessorKipCornwall（2009）

Overview

1.MostImportantCriminal:

FourthAmendmentSearchandSeizure

2.Secondmostimportanttopic:

Confessions,especiallyinthecontextoftheFifthAmendmentMirandadoctrine

3.AdditionalTopics:

WiretappingandEavesdropping;LawofArrest;PretrialIdentification;Punishment;GrandJuries;PretrialDetention;TrialRights;GuiltyPleasandPleaBargaining;Punishment;DoubleJeopardy;FifthAmendmentPrivilegeAgainstSelf-Incrimination（“TakingtheFifth”）

I.FOURTHAMENDMENTSEARCHANDSEIZURE

Eightstepsaddressthreeglobalsearchandseizureissues:

1.WhetherasearchandseizureisgovernedbytheFourthAmendment（Steps1and2）;

2.WhetherasearchandseizurethatisgovernedbytheFourthAmendmentsatisfiesconstitutionalrequirements（Steps3through6）;and

3.Theextenttowhichevidencegatheredin,orderivedfrom,asearchandseizurethatviolatestheFourthAmendmentisadmissibleincourt（Steps7and8）.

Step1:

Istheregovernmentconduct?

Ifnogovernmentconduct,thenthe4thamendmentwillnotapply.

Threedifferenttypesofgovernmentactors:

（1）Publicpaidpolicewhoareonoroffduty

（2）Privatecitizensbutonlyifactingatthedirectionofthepolice

（3）Privatelypaidpolicebutonlyifdeputizedwiththepowertoarrest（i.e.lawenforcementbyuniversitypolice）

Ifthesearchandseizurewasconductedbysomeonewhofallsintooneoftheabovecategories,proceedtoStepTwo

Step2:

Didthesearchorseizureinvadeindividual’sreasonableexpectationofprivacy?

（1）ProtectedAreas

（a）TheFourthAmendmentprotectsindividualsfromunreasonablesearchesandseizuresoftheir:

（i）Persons（i.e.bodies）;

（ii）Houses（includinghotelrooms）;

（iii）Papers（e.g.personalcorrespondence）;and

（iv）Effects（e.g.purses,backpacks）

（b）Home-basedprivacyincludesthe“areaofdomesticuse”immediatelysurroundingthehouse,calledtheprivilege

（2）Unprotecteditems

Itemsthatapublicinnatureastohavenoreasonableexpectationofprivacy:

“PattyAchievedAGloriousVictoryOverHerOpponents”

oPaintscrapingsontheoutsideofyourcar

oAccountrecordsheldbyabankareroutinelyreviewedbythirdparties

oAirspace–anythingyoucanseebelowwhileflyinginpublicairspace

oGarbageleftatthecurbforcollection

oVoice-soundofyourvoice

oOdorsthatemanatefromyourluggageoracar

oHandwriting-styleofyourhandwriting

oOpenfields-anythingthatcanbeseeninoracrossopenfieldscarriesnoreasonableexpectationofprivacy

（3）Challengingthesearch

Tohaveauthority,or“standing”tochallengethelawfulnessofagovernmentsearchandseizure,anindividual’spersonalprivacyrightsmustbeinvaded,notthoseofathirdparty.When,therefore,dothefollowingindividualshavethatauthority?

A.theownersofthepremisessearched:

always

B.theresidentsofthepremisessearched:

always

C.overnightguestsinthepremisessearched:

alwaysastoareasthatovernightguestscanbeexpectedtoaccess

D.Individualsusingsomeoneelse’sresidencesolelyforbusinesspurposes?

:

never

E.Ownersofthepropertyseized?

:

onlyiftheownerhasreasonableexpectationofprivacyintheareafromwhichthepropertywasseized.

F.Passengersincars?

:

onlyifthepassengerhasareasonableexpectationofprivacyintheitemssearchedorseized

NYDistinction:

passengersincarsdohavestandingtochallengethepossessionofweapons,ifpossessionisattributedtothem.

Ifyoufindthatagovernmentsearchandseizurehasviolateanindividual’sreasonableexpectationofprivacy,wemustnextaskwhetherthesearchandseizurewastheproductofavalidlyissuedandproperlyexecutedwarrant.Wewillstartwiththeissueofvalidityinstep3.

Step3:

Wasthesearchauthorizedbyafaciallyvalidwarrant?

Therearetwocorerequirementstoreferencewhendeterminingthevalidityofawarrant:

（1）Probablecause:

STANDARD:

afairprobabilitythatcontrabandorevidenceofcrimewillbefoundintheareasearched.

a）Itispermissibleforthispurposetousehearsayevidencethatwouldbeinadmissibleattrial.

b）Canalsouseinformationgatheredfromaninformant’stip–butpoliceneedtocorroborateenoughofthetipster’sinformationtoallowthemagistratetomakeacommonsensepracticaldeterminationthatprobablecauseexistsinagivencircumstance.[Gatestest]

NYDistinction:

NYcontinuestousethestricterAgalar-Spinellitesttodetermineprobablecause.

Twoprongtest:

Theapplicationforasearchwarrantmustdemonstrateboththe;

1）veracityandreliabilityofthesource;and

2）basisoftheinformant’sknowledge

Wherethepolicedonotknowaninformer’sbasisofinformant’sknowledge,thisrequirementmaynonethelessbesatisfiedifpoliceobservationconfirmssufficientdetailsofsuggestedofordirectlyrelatedtocriminalactivityinguest

（2）Particularity:

STANDARD:

Thesearchwarrantmustspecifytheplacetobesearchedandtheitemstobeseized.

Iftheparticularizeddescriptioniscontainedinanaffidavitthatsupportsthewarrantbutnotinthewarrantitself,itmustbeincorporatedexpresslyintothewarrantitself.

Awarrantthatisinvalidduetotheabsenceofprobablecauseorparticularitycanstillbesavediftheofficerreliedonitin“goodfaith”（thoughnotinNewYork）.Thus,ifanmultiplechoice（MBE）questionpresentsadefectivesearchwarrant,proceedtostep4.

Step4:

Doesanofficer’s“goodfaith”savethedefectivesearchwarrant?

Rule:

Anofficer’s“goodfaith”overcomesconstitutionaldeficitsinprobablecauseandparticularity.

Theexclusionaryrule:

avictimofasearchoraconfessionthatisobtainedinviolationofafederalstatutoryorconstitutionalprovisioncanhavetheproductoftheillegalityexcludedfromtheprosecutor’scaseinchiefatthecriminaltrial,butthereisnoexclusionatgrandjuryhearings,parolerevocationhearings,orcivilhearings.Goodfaithonthepartoftheofficerinsulatestheevidencegatheredfromexclusion

4categoricalexceptions:

（1）Theaffidavitsupportingthewarrantapplicationissoegregiouslylackinginprobablecausethatnoreasonableofficerswouldhavereliedonit.

（2）Thewarrantapplicationorwarrantitselfissoegregiouslylackinginparticularitythatnoreasonableofficerswouldhavereliedonit.

（3）Theofficerordistrictattorneylietoormisleadthemagistratewhoissuedthewarrant.

（4）Themagistratewhoissuedthewarrantwasbiased,meaningheorshewhollyabandonedneutrality.

Remember:

Awarrantthatisinvalidduetoabsenceofprobablecauseorparticularitycanstillbesavediftheofficerreliedonitin“goodfaith”ontheMBEpartoftheexamonly.

NYdoesnotacceptthis“goodfaith”doctrine.

Ifthepolicehadeitheravalidwarrantor,ontheMBE,adefectivewarrantsavedbytheofficer’sgoodfaith,youmustmoveontostep5.

Step5:

Wasthesearchwarrantproperlyexecutedbythepolice?

Therearetwoissuestofocusoninstep5:

（1）Didtheofficersexceedthescopeofwarrant?

EXAMPLE:

Awarrantallowspolicetosearch“thelivingroom”andbedroomsforfirearms.”

Whatareasofitems,ifsearched,wouldbeoutsidethescopeofthewarrant?

A.Areas:

anyroomsotherthanliving/bedrooms

B.Items:

anycontainerstoosmalltofirearms（e.g.ifthewarrantallowsyoutosearchforfirearms,itisaproblemifcopsstartopeningpillboxesbecausefirearmsdon’tfitinthere）

（2）Didthepolicecomplywiththe“KnockandAnnounce”rule?

:

ThisrulerequirepolicetoknockandannouncetheirpresenceandpurposebeforeforciblyenteringtheplacetobesearchedUNLESSanofficerreasonablybelievesthatdoingsowouldbefutile,dangerous,orotherwiseinhibittheinvestigation

e.g.Policeconcernthatdefendantswouldbeflushingdrugsdownthetoiletiftheyknockedandannounced.

RecentSCOTUSdecision:

Violationsoftheknockandannounceruledonotrequiresuppressionoftheevidenceprocuredthroughtheviolation.

Whatifthepolice（a）hadnowarrant;or（b）inNY,hadawarrantthatdoesnotsatisfyprobablecauseandparticularityrequirements;or（c）ontheMBEonly,hadadefectivewarrantthatcouldnotbe“saved”by“goodfaith”?

In（a）,（b）or（c）,thesearchmightstillsatisfytheFourthAmendmentbyfallingunderanexceptiontothewarrantrequirement.Movetostep6.

Step6:

Isthesearchvalidunderanyofthe8exceptionstothewarrantrequirement?

Exceptionstothewarrantrequirementcansaveadefectiveorimproperlyexecutedwarrant,becauseyoudidn’tneedawarrantinthefirstplace.

∙ESCAPIST

oExigentcircumstances

oSearchincidenttoarrest

oConsent

oAutomobile

oPlainview

oInventory

oSpecialNeeds

oTerrystopandfrisk

（1）Exigentcircumstances（“EvanescentEvidence”and“HotPursuit”）:

A.EvanescentEvidence:

Evidencethatwoulddisappearoverthetimeittakestogetawarrant

（e.g.scrapingsunderfingernails;bloodevidenceinDUIwherebreathalyzerrefused.）

B.Hotpursuitofafleeingfelon:

Hotpursuitallowspolicetoenterwithoutawarrantintoasuspect’sorathirdparty’shomeinlookingforthefelon;ifyoucomeuponcriminalevidencewhileinhotpursuitthenthisisokay.Duringhotpursuit,anyevidenceofacrimediscoveredinplainviewwhilesearchingforsuspectisadmissible.

（2）Searchincidenttoarrest:

A.Needalawfulcustodialarrest（someoneisarrestedandisabouttobetakenintocustody）.

B.Justification:

（i）ensurethesafetyoftheofficeror（ii）topreserveevidence.

C.Timing:

CONTEMPORANEOUSNESSREQUIREMENT:

thesearchincidenttoarrestmustbecontemporaneousintimeandplacewiththearrest.

NotethatSCOT