Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

5th Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Miranda Warnings, Colorado v. Spring,…

- - - - Berghuis v. Thompkins
- - - - Because of their noncoercive aspect a person temporarily detained pursuant to an ordinary traffic stop is not in custody for 5th Amendment purposes
    - - Officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to try to obtain info confirming or dispelling the officer’s suspicions without Miranda warnings
- - - - Facts
        
        : suspect arrested in supermarket after being accused of rape and foot chase, when police (4 officers) pat him down they find an empty shoulder holster and ask where the gun was, he replies “the gun is over there.” The gun is recovered and suspect is later interviewed post Miranda about ownership and where he purchased the gun to which he confessed.
- - - - NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE NEED TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
  - - - Confined to what is minimally necessary to find weapons
      - General exploratory search for any type of evidence is not allowed
- - - - o Seizure: Person does not feel free to leave
        
         Once the seizure occurs, the officer has to justify the seizure by reasonable suspicion
- - - - Test for Reasonableness of a Stop and Frisk Seizure
        
        (2) Whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place
        
        (1) Whether the officers action was justified at its inception
        
        Officer must show specific and articulable facts, which take together with rational inferences would reasonably warrant the intrusion
        
        A mere hunch is not enough
        
        Would the facts available to the officer at the moment of the seizure or the search "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief" that the action taken was appropriate?
        
        Reasonable suspicion at the time, not after the fact
        
        Reasonable Suspicion v. Probable Cause
        
        Reasonable suspicion is a lower burden of proof than probable cause because a pat down is less intrusive seizure
        
        o Probable cause = reasonable belief
        
        o Stop and Frisk = reasonable suspicion backed by articulable facts.
- - - - If the prosecution can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the information ultimately or inevitably would have been discovered by lawful means, then the exclusionary rule does not apply.
  - - - allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means of wholly independent of any constitutional violation.
- - - - HOWEVER
        
        Attenuation Doctrine
        
        Evidence is admissible when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is remote or has been interrupted by some intervening circumstances.
        
        "sufficiently" remote
        
        Factors
        
        1) Temporal proximity – substantial time lapse favors allowing evidence in; 2) Presence of intervening circumstances – some event or thing that breaks the chain favors admission; 3) Purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct – purposeful or flagrant conduct favors admission.
- - - - The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and it is made applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
        
        General Rule: Probable Cause + Warrant
        
        Probable Cause
        
        Exceptions
        
        Automobile Exception
        
        Rationale
        
        1 more item...
        
        Scope
        
        1 more item...
        
        Trigger
        
        1 more item...
        
        Consent
        
        Scope
        
        1 more item...
        
        Rationale
        
        1 more item...
        
        Trigger
        
        1 more item...
        
        Requirements
        
        2 more items...
        
        Giving and Taking Consent Away
        
        1 more item...
        
        Probable Cause to Search
        
        Probable Cause to Arrest
        
        Warrrant
        
        Exceptions
        
        Warrantless searches of the automobile are allowed if there is PC to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of crime.
        
        Carrol v. U.S.
        
        Consent
        
        See Probable cause side for steps
        
        Plain View Doctrine
        
        trigger
        
        1 more item...
        
        scope
        
        1 more item...
        
        rationale
        
        1 more item...
        
        1) Police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object; 2) the incriminating character of the object is readily apparent; and 3) the officer has a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant (Hicks, Long).
        
        Requirements for Valid Warrant
        
        Neutral and detached magistrate
        
        Must have severance and disengagement from activities
        
        Probable Cause Requirement
        
        Confidential Informant
        
        3 more items...
        
        When to invalidate the Warrant
- - - - : (1) a person exhibits an actual expectation of privacy in the object of the search (subjective prong), and (2) the expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective prong)
        
        Trespass Doctrine
        
        US v Jones
        
        Governmental trespass into private property (protected area) for the purpose of obtaining information is a search within the meaning of the 4th
        
        Technology
        
        Cell Site Location Info "CSLI"
        
        Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber’s CSLI, the Government’s obligation is to get a warrant.
        
        Rationale?
        
        We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information. In light of the deeply revealing nature of CSLI, its depth, breadth, and comprehensive reach, and the inescapable and automatic nature of its collection, the fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”
        
        Cell Phone
        
        Riley v California
        
        A cell phone can be seized as part of a search incident to arrest, but the information contained in the cell phone, cannot be viewed or accessed without a warrant. The court reasoned that modern smart phones possess too much information to allow searches without warrants.
        
        Thermal Imager
        
        Kyllo v. U.S.
        
        Government warrantless use of a device that is not in general public use, to explore the details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion is a search and unreasonable
        
        What is reasonable?
        
        Intimate parts of someones person consitutes a search
  - - - Schools - New Jersey v. TLO
    - - Issue
        
        Whether every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed.
      - Rule
        
        When an arrestee will join the general population of a jail, correctional officials must be permitted to devise reasonable search policies to detect and deter the possession of contraband in their facilities, to include strip searches.
      - Rationale
        
        Correctional officials have a legitimate interest, indeed a responsibility, to ensure that jails are not made less secure by reason of what new detainees may carry in on their bodies. Facility personnel, other inmates, and the new detainee himself or herself may be in danger if these threats are introduced into the jail population.
      - Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington
  - - - Intrusion into home
        
        doesnt need to own, only reside
        
        Curtillage (area surrounding)
        
        Barns, warehouses, sheds
        
        In the workplace
        
        Expectation weaker
        
        More intimately connected with home
        
        Greater precautions against public visibility
- - - - Pen Register
        
        Smith v. Maryland
        
        A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers dialed in his telephone because the numbers were voluntarily conveyed to the telephone company.
      - Bank Records
        
        U.S. v. Miller
        
        A bank depositor has no legitimate expectation of privacy in financial information voluntarily conveyed to banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.
      - Informant
        
        U.S. v. White
        
        It is not objectively reasonable to expect privacy in what one knowingly volunteers to a third person, whether recorded or transmitted, since one assumed the risk that this information will be later conveyed to the government.
      - Curtillage
        
        California v. Greenwood
        
        A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left for collection outside of the curtilage of a home.
  - - - What is a Curtilage?
        
        The area immediately surrounding the home is called the curtilage and receives 4th Amendment protection. In Dunn v. US the Court identified four factors a court should weight when determining whether the area in question constitutes curtilage:
        
        (2) Whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the home
        
        (3) the nature of the areas uses
        
        (1) the areas proximity to the home
        
        (4) Steps taken to protect the area from observation
      - Helicopter
        
        Florida v. Riley
        
        The government is free to inspect the curtilage with the naked eye from the vantage point of an aircraft flying within navigable airspace accessible to the public. As a general proposition, the police may see what may be seen from a public vantage point where they have a right to be.
  - - - Any abandoned place
        
        Seen or observed from a public vantage point
        
        Observance from Public air space not a search
        
        Information disclosed to third party
        
        Trash
        
        Pen register
        
        1 more item...
- - - - TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES HAS TO REVEAL THAT BOTH UN-COERCED CHOICE AND THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION IS REQUIRED FOR THE COURT TO FIND WAIVER OF MIRANDA
        
        FACTORS
        
        Background, Education, Experience, and Conduct of Accused
  - - - Lawyer calling police to inform that she will be available for Defendants interview
        
        Events occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish Miranda warnings
- - - - A seizure occurs when in view of all of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that she was not free to leave or otherwise terminate the police encounter.
    - - INS conducted surveys of 3 garment factories placing several agents near exits while others dispersed throughout the factories to question most employees about their citizenship. If the employee gave unsatisfactory response or admitted that he was an alien, the employee was asked to produce immigration papers. The officers displayed their badges, carried radios, and were armed.
        
        Rationale: Because the workers were free to move about the factory and none attempted to leave and were detained, a reasonable person would not have felt that they were free to leave.
    - - Bostick was traveling via bus from Miami to Atlanta. During a stop in Ft. Lauderdale, 2 officers (badges, insignia, and a gun in a zipper pouch) boarded the bus and without RS, asked to inspect his ticket and ID and asked for consent to search his bags.
        
        Issue:
        
        whether a seizure occurred
        
        Rationale
        
        Bostick’s movements were confined by his decision to take the bus; it says nothing abut whether or not the police conduct at issue was coercive. No seizure occurs when police ask questions, ask to examine ID, or request consent, so long as the officers do not convey a message that compliance with their request is required.
  - - - 2 plain clothes officers at Miami International Airport approached Royer because they believed his appearance, mannerisms, and luggage fit the drug courier profile. They identified themselves as and asked if Royer had a moment to speak to them; he said “yes.” Royer produced an airline ticket (with name “Holt” like baggage) and DL (name “Royer”). Royer became nervous when asked about discrepancy and was asked to move to a room, 40 feet away, and he complied. One detective then went to retrieve the “Hold” luggage from airline using the claim stub. Royer was asked for consent to search the suitcase and without answering Royer produced a key and drugs were found in the bag.
        
        Rule
        
        an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Investigative methods should be least intrusive means reasonably available to verity or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time
        
        Rationale
        
        when officers discovered that Royer was traveling with an assumed name, plus their suspicions about him being a drug courier (paying cash for one way ticket, mode of checking the two bags, and appearance and conduct); gave the officers reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was afoot, and could detain him to verify or dispel their suspicions in a manner that did not exceed the limits of an investigative detention. However, what began as a consensual encounter in a public place, escalated into an arrest when Royer was moved, to the police interrogation room (without any safety or security concerns justifying moving him), while the officers kept Royer’s ticket, ID, and luggage (keeping him from being able to leave), while they continued to ask about his actions. The officer’s conduct was more intrusive than necessary to effectuate an investigative detention otherwise authorized by Terry, therefore an unlawful seizure took place.
- - - - Factors: severity of the crime at issue, threat posed by suspect to safety of officers or others, whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
  - - - When determining whether or not a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights
- - - - Officer was acting under Tennessee statute that read “if after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.
        
        Rationale: Use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.
- - - - GPS attached to car, no search under regular
        
        PRoperty based approach is a search
        
        Drug Sniffing dog on Curtilage
        
        Is a Search
        
        Sense enhancing Tech.
        
        Search under both
        
        Regular
        
        Property based
        
        Tracking beacon in container
        
        Search under both