Top Posters
Since Sunday
5
o
5
4
m
4
b
4
x
4
a
4
l
4
t
4
S
4
m
3
s
3
A free membership is required to access uploaded content. Login or Register.

Criminal Procedure Final Review Sheet

Uploaded: 5 years ago
Contributor: emmiiiiiss
Category: Legal Studies
Type: Other
Rating: N/A
Helpful
Unhelpful
Filename:   CP Review Sheet Finals.docx (151.25 kB)
Page Count: 3
Credit Cost: 1
Views: 83
Last Download: N/A
Transcript
CP Review Sheet Finals Give details about Jones v. US The government obtained a warrant to install a GPS on a vehicle registered to Jones’ wife. The warrant required that the device be installed within 10 days in DC. However, the device was installed one day late and in Maryland. The government tracked the vehicle for 28 days, and based on the tracking, they indicted Jones and others on drug trafficking conspiracy charges. The court suppressed the GPS-data obtained while the vehicle was parked in front of Jones’ residence, but held that the remaining data was admissible though Jones had no expectation of privacy on public streets. Silverthorne v. US Federal agents executed a warrant against Silverthorne. They were looking for Silverthorne’s records of profit; he hadn’t paid taxes. They took all his record and made copies of them and returned the originals. Using the copies, they obtained a new search warrant to recover papers so they could prosecute him. The court held that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used to support a search warrant for evidence. This indirect evidence must also be excluded. Define the fruit of the poisonous tree The prosecution may not use evidence obtained directly or indirectly from a constitutional violation. The use of secondary evidence is also called the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Mapp v. Ohio Police go to miss Mapp because they believe she is harboring a fugitive wanting in a bombing. They don’t have a warrant so she doesn’t let them in. They return a while later with a paper, but they don't let her read it before forcing themselves inside. No fugitive is found, but they do find pornographic pictures which they arrest her for. In trial a warrant is never found. Mapp is found guilty in court. The supreme court is asked to judge. They find that the purpose of the exclusionary rule was to respect the constitution and its guarantees. In this case the fourth amendment has not been met. Katz v. US The FBI attached an electronic recording device to the outside of a public telephone booth. They used the it to record Katz obtaining gambling-related information and placing illegal bets. The conversation was used against Katz in trial, but the court held that it violated the fourth amendment, not because of the device on the phone booth but the fourth amendment protects people and not places. Certain acts against property are trespass issues and this one violated Katz’s privacy. There are two requirements for the fourth amendment to apply: 1) the defendant must have an expectation of privacy, and 2) the expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. List the three legitimate privacy interests recognized by the US Supreme Court There is an interest in being free from physical disruption or inconvenience Certain information may be personal or embarrassing, innocent people may have interest in keeping such information private Interest in the control over and use of his property – in cases where the government is exercising dominion and control over such property. Greenwood v. California The police suspected that Greenwood was involved in narcotic trafficking, but they didn’t have probable cause to search his house. Police obtained garbage from the trash collector in front of Greenwood’s house. The US Supreme Court held that even if Greenwood have an expectation of privacy in garbage left outside, society wasn’t prepared to accept this as reasonable. The court held that it’s common knowledge that garbage left on or at the side of a public street is accessible to others. Police could therefor use the garbage found to issue a search warrant of Greenwood’s home, where they found substances. Define curtilage An area of land around a dwelling forming one enclosure with it. California v. Ciraola Ciraola grew marijuana in his backyard, which was shielded of two fences. The police had a suspicion of this, but not enough for probable cause. Therefore, the police did a warrantless aerial observation of his backyard, they flew with altitude of 1000 feet over his backyard. Because the police observations took place from public airspace, using an airplane to which anyone could have done observations, Ciraolo’s expectations of privacy didn’t meet societies acceptance that it was reasonable. Court held that this does not violate the 4th amendment. Illinois v. Caballes An Illinois state trooper stopped the respondent for speeding. He radioed the stop in, and another trooper, hearing the info radioed, responded to the scene with a narcotics trained dog. The first trooper wrote the respondent a warning, the second had the trunk opened after the dog reacted. On inspection, the troopers found pot and arrested Caballes. The court held that this was not a violation of the 4th amendment since the reason for the stop itself was valid and not unreasonable, and the inspection was done because the dog reacted. Define mere suspicion A hunch or feeling of intuition without supporting circumstances. Define probable cause A reasonable suspicion supported by circumstances that would make the police believe that certain facts probably are true. Define reasonable suspicion A hunch or a feeling of intuition with supporting circumstances or proof. Define exculpatory evidence Evidence the DA must turn over to the defendant, if that evidence goes to show that the defendant is innocent. Discuss the case Miranda v. Arizona Miranda was arrested in Arizona. He was accused of committing rape again. Police arrested him, brought him to a room and questioned him about it. They gave him a pen and paper and told him to write the confession. In trial the note was used as evidence and he was charged guilty. Supreme court said the confession couldn’t be used because he had not been told about his rights. Discuss Payton v. New York The police entered Payton’s apartment to arrest him for selling drugs, no warrant was necessary at the time in NYS to enter a dwelling to effect an arrest for a felony. Payton was not home, but police discovered guns used in a robbery. The police left, and applied for a warrant of the guns they discovered. The police returned to arrest Payton and found drugs the same time during a search of the home. Even if there wasn’t necessary a warrant to effect an arrest, it still violated the constitution though a search and seizure without warrant is presumed to be unreasonable. Discuss Illinois v. Gates Bloomingdale pd got an anonymous letter giving suspicion to Gates and his wife being engaged in selling drugs. The police acted on the tip and started surveillance on the couple. The tip turned out to be true after some surveillance and the police acquired a search warrant. They searched the home and car and found marijuana and other contraband and charged the couple. Prior to trial the court suppressed the evidence. The supreme court affirmed the suppression holding that the affidavit and letter were inadequate for probable cause since they failed to live up to Aguilar and Spinelli’s two pronged test. This created the new “totality of the circumstances” rule, which better protects the fourth amendment. An informant’s information can be found enough for probable cause if corroborated by the officer’s own investigation. Discuss US v. Leon Police initiated surveillance of Leon, and a search found a large amount of drugs. In trial the court granted Leon’s suppression of evidence since the warrant was not issued on probable cause. The court held that the warrant contained untested allegations from an informant with limited corroboration from the officers. The court of appeals affirmed. Discuss Aguilar v. Texas Police apply for a search warrant; they want to check the home of Nick Aguilar for drugs. Police submit affidavits stating they received information about Aguilar and drugs from a “confidential informant.” They also state that they believe this information to be reliable. The Supreme Court found that warrants issued on the probable cause belief in an informant is insufficient to establish probable cause. The officers must explain why they believe the informant, e.g. he has supplied information in the past that was proven true. Discuss Spinelli v. US FBI got information from a reliable informant that Spinelli was traveling across state lines with the intentions of conducting gambling activities. The court held that the evidence was not seized by an invalid warrant and would not be suppressed. Court established steps for warrants: If the officer is relying on someone else (informant) for all or part of the information (knowledge), two additional determinations must be met Who is the source of the information? Reliability/verity is the the first prong under Spinelli. What are the basis and details of the source’s knowledge? Credibility/basis on knowledge is the second prong. 1b) must expose the basis of the knowledge, or 2b) verification of details from other tips

Related Downloads
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  935 People Browsing
 112 Signed Up Today
Your Opinion
Do you believe in global warming?
Votes: 370