Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

WHEN WARRANT NOT REQUIRED,

A. Was the 4th implicated MUST BE SHOWN BY DEFENDANT ? The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
house, paper and effects, against unreasonable s&s 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 1) Is it Gvt. Act look @ degree of govt involvement : Did the gvt do more than a private citizen; did gvt solicit private citizen to act on its behalf 2)Did citizen Knowingly Expose/Reasonable Privacy Expectation; objectively reasonable to society.

Terry (Must be justified at its inception; therefore, the first question


you ask must be directly related to the stop; if you ask a question unrelated to why you stopped them, thats a primary illegality. 1. If

B. WAS A WARRANT REQUIRED (warrant requirements)? In order for police to secure a warrant they must have probable cause to the person or thing sought, police must make an oath and affirmation as to the information in the affidavit, it must be issued by a neutral and unau8ihttached magistrate; it must describe with particularity the identity of the person or things to be seized and the place to be search; and it must be executed in a reasonable manner. If any components lacking validity of warrant can be challenged.
If seeking to exclude go to
(EXCLUSIONARY RULE) AFTER ANALYSIS

(PC+Something) PC=is the measure of justification that applies to full-scale intrusions- searches, seizures, and arrests. PC that the individual in question has committed crime (arrest) or that specific items related to criminal activity will be found at particular place at this particular time (search)specific & concrete facts not conclusory speculations Exigency . Search incident to arrest: a. Lawful arrest (PC) b. Limited to grabable space if a citizen is lawfully arrestedRobinson automatically kicks in (you dont have to be looking for evidence, there is no prior justification other than a lawful arrestyou can search anything on the person of the arrestee without any prior justification; the Chimel zone is not automatic, it requires further justificationwhat evidence do you have that the person has something in his immediate control.is there a custodial arrest, what is he arrested for (if its a violent crime, there may be something in his immediate control); if you get beyond the Chimel zone, then its Buieif police is arresting the citizen in such a place where someone may be nearby that can do him harm officers can perform a protective sweep, PO must identify with particular facts (reasonable suspicion); it muxt be performed as a precautionary manner (if you make a lawful arrest, police can open adjacent doors w/o explanation) When exigency is over so is the exception. Alford PC to arrest need not be closely related to offense identified @ time of arrest. Moreover, If PO has PC to make arrest and arrest it is later found to be unlawful thats ok because whether probable cause exists depends upon the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest. We dont want to make the lawfulness of an arrest turn to the subjective intent of an officer. Therefore, the only inquiry into what the officer knew are the facts avail to him at time of arrest. Challenges:Police did not make arrest on his suspicion, charges were stacked; made arrest without stating grounds Pringle GROUP SUSPICION- Silence can create PC that all members are involved in illegal activity when theyre involved in a common enterprise with constructive knowledge of the illegal substances presence Challenges: Someone immediately talks; no consent to search and no reas susp or pc; no constructive know King Officers cannot create an exigency and then rely on that exigency to search or seize, Warden v. Hayden: Exigent (PC + emerg) allow search any where person can reasonably be. Exig ends when object found. Vale: cursory search in/s H when arr made o/s H if PO is afraid Segura: PO secure home prevent destruct/removal of evid/so no1 can get it.

4th protects people not places; & reach doesnt solely turn on if physical intrusion occurred. KE-what steps did citizen take to protect
his privacy interest, and what did citizen want to keep privatedepends on settings & vantage pt observation made? If reasonable steps were

officer observes unusual conduct 2. leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, and in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, 3.he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Stop and frisk
a. Reasonable suspicion to believe crim act is a foot b. Reasonable sus to believe subject armed & dangerous Stop & Frisk- Reasonable suspicion (RS)

taken by the citizen, did the gvt interfere with those sensible reasonable steps, if so, it may be a search. Katz: uninvited ear,
but what about uninvited eye Person cant have RE that others wont know sound of voice/ that face will be mystery so govt can req person to submit exemplars of their voice, handwriting, fingerprints

1. Was probable cause supported by oath/affirmation to search/arrest? {usually in form of PO affidavit}


PC=is

White: NO: Youve assumed the risk that the person may talk to the policeIf 3d party consented to PO listening, youve knowingly exposed; If youre engaged in criminal conduct you must assume that you are communicating with an informant; Since the defendant has no constitutional right to exclude the informer's unaided testimony, he shouldn't have a right to exclude against a more accurate account of that testimony., no 4th amendment protection HOWEVER MAY IMPLICATE 6th AMEND GO TO MASSIAH

Test for Articulable Suspicion: US v. Cortez - Must be


an objective test based on TOC and individualized suspicion.
Evidence collected must be understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement, not weighed in terms of library analysis. Police make the decision about whether there was a reasonable stop must have a law enforcement expert to testify as to whether the stop was reasonable

INFORMANTS May get

information from informant and doesnt need all of the indicia of reliability req for PC (Was
Oliver: No

the measure of justification that applies to full-scale intrusions- searches, seizures, and arrests. PC is measured by an objective standard assessing whether the individual in question has committed, or is committing a crime, or that specific items related to criminal activity will be found at particular place at this particular time (search)specific & concrete facts not conclusory speculations Challenges: I.) PC was inadequate on its face and the false information was NECESSARY to the PC finding b/c no other evidence present; Dispute truthfulness of fact argue affidavit contains false statemt knowingly/intently or w/ reckless disregard for truth by affiant PO must prove by preponderance of evid, if win lies gone but not necessarily warrant LOOK TO SEE IF
A GOOD FAITH ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE) Leon Good Faith Exception: The ER does not bar admission of evidence seized in reasonable, GF reliance on defective search war false stmts by informants/mistakes doesnt satisfy requiremt that PC lacking

reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields because they do not provide the setting for intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance; open fields need not be open or a field
Challenges: based on (1) the proximity of the area to the house; (2) whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding the house; (3) the nature and use to which the area is putintimate activities; private bags placed on the open field and (4) any steps taken to protect the view; Dunn: Yes

informant reliableany past information lead to an arrest; how much information corroborated; did informant give information adverse to his penal interest) Williams - PO can

conduct an immediate/automatic frisk based on info from a known informant if there is corroboration in a high crime area & is presently armed & dangerous
Terry stop can ONLY shift to the MIRANDA WORLD if citizens freedom of movement is interfered with in a significant way theres unequal bargaining positions between police and citizens police do not have to tell you that now were in Miranda world) (GO TO SHIFT FROM OFFICER FRISK, TO INTERROGATION (vailid only if citizen consented to continue conversation) to CUSTODY.

reasonable expectation of privacy in curtilage because it is an area "to which extends the intimate activity associated with the 'sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. Factors (1) proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home,
(2) whether claimed area is within an enclosure surrounding the home, (3) usage of the area, and (4) the steps taken to protect the area from observation by people passing by IF ARREST W/O WARRANT CONSIDER

Hibel If under state statue, a citizen is required to identify himself at the


request of an officer, the citizens failure to adhere to the officers demand justifes the citizens arrest. HOWVER Stop and interrogate is supposed to be during a reasonable durationBE CAREFUL, if the citizen is not being cooperative then the interrogation can last until the police gets the

IF REASONABLE UNDER SANTANA

Gates INFORMANT PC is a common sense determination in light of the totality of the circumstances to reach a fair probability findng that the citizen committed a crime. No longer is reliability necessary because it can never be satisfied with an anonymous tip. Also, an informants veracity and basis for knowledge are only considerations that may usefully illuminate ones common sense. Therefore under the totality of the circumstances approach, PC is very easy to establish. Challenges: this is a bare recital of legal conclusions; no PC existed at time of execution. However, some states afford its citizens with more protection so we will analyze PC under THE TWO-PRONG TEST-1.who is this
informant-(reliability); 2.how does he know what he know (sufficiency of the informationhearsay may work if reliable informant) and if you cant establish it this way, you can do it the Draper way (future predictions) theres a 3rd and 4th wayESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE IS WIDE OPEN FOR THE PROSECUTION, When probable cause goes up on appeal the appellate ct must ask if there is a substantial basis for what the trial ct did. So as long as the trl ct pointed to something and said theres probable cause then it is clearly established. Use interrogatories to force the prosecutor to explain what does police mean by always reliable in the past. Can you accept the same information from a police officer that you can get from an informant?

Riley/Ciarolo warrantless aerial observation from an airplane/helicopter lawfully in navigable does not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendmentk PO is doing no more tha the average citizen However PO must use naked eye to see; and citizen must be put on notice.. Challenges: Citizen had no notice & therefore didnt KEdiscuss who should bear burden to establish lack of notice; PO interfere w/ intimate act; disturbs property

information sought. Challenges: No statute requiring the citizen to speak with officers; or/and This presents a 5TH AMEND ISSUE disclosure of name present reasonable danger of incrimination b/c there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense (ANALYZE UNDER) MIRANDA (no familiar rights given) suspect's refusal is based on an articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would (a) be used to incriminate him, or (b) furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him

PUBLIC ARREST officers may effectuate a lawful arrest without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe the subject has committed or is committing a crime Atawater: PO can make an arrest for any offense (jailable or non-jailable) as long as it is not done in an extraordinary manner. Humiliation caused by an arrest is not a violation of the 4th amend Arrestee must receive probable cause hearing w/in 48 hours of arrest. If incriminating statements made after 48 hrs then not admissible.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE AUTOMOBILE

Green: Once citizen abandons property (trash) outside the curtilage PO taking does not implicate 4th amend; doesnt matter if citizen required to dispose under ordinance; illegal conduct Challenges: If citizen stands by the trash with a gun and personally placed it in the dump truck, then maybe there would be some legitimate expectation of privacy; if the garbage is inside the curtilage or the house, greenwood does not apply

REASONABLENESS LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE TO STOP


Officer must have reasonable articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot.

Grubbs ANTICIPATORY SEARCH probable cause that at some time in the future certain evidence of a crime will be located at a specified place with an affidavit accompanying the warrant application stating the "triggering condition" that will occur b4 the warrant is executed meets the PC requirement even if the TC is not listed in the warrant 2.W signed and issued by neutral & detached magistrate?

PC TO CAR Carroll/Ross): PC to Automobile search . PO can tear the car up if the object can reasonably be found. The lessened expectation of privacy in vehicles and their mobility supports warrantless searches. However, if a warrant can be obtained it should be. Even if car is parked on private property Carroll applies. lesser expectation of privacy n car b/c used for transport & not usual depository for personal effect Challenges: establish vehicle used for personal effect

(look at place and purpose of stop)


Terry v. Ohio-

stop must be limited and justified at its

inception. If PO have RS but no fear of the person they can stop &
Kyllo: LIMITED TO THE HOUSE. Sensory

ct clerk/mag not associated w/ s office/PO, cant accompany PO as they execute W & assist in seizure; cant be a rubber stamp signature

enhancement devices that are not in public use cannot be used on a home to secure incriminating evidence. because homes are the last enclave of privacy These devices may reveal intimate activities in the home. AREA OTHER THAN HOME Dow Devices used during arial observation for regulation purposes at an industrial facility does not implicate the 4th amend. Although an enclosed industrial plant does not
fall precisely w/n open fields doctrine under 4th but with regard to an arieal survillence it falls more in line w/ open filed than curtilage or dwelling. Challenges: information obtained for competition purposepossible 5th amend argument; information obtained on ground; intimate activities disclosed Karo: When device merely enhances sensory perception & facilitates surveillance thats possible w/o enhancement = no 4th amendment. Even device attached to a car/beeper Challenges: If the government must enter the home or the bldg to get the information, and that's the only other way they could've collected the information, then the fourth amendment is implicated.TEST: BUT FOR the beeper, could the government have obtained this information? Bond: If PO touch & can automatically tell what's in there, then u have knowingly exposed. If PO go beyond that & exploratory search/group = search. Caballes: if dog sniffs item/car this IS NOT a search, no PC is required, person may be different.

interrogate, but not frisk. Can frisk if you are fleeing a high crime area. Frisk limited to outer clothing of the citizen & thing that police feel must be a weapon.We need this in order to protect society and police from harm

Exception: plain feel doctrine: Minnesota v. Dickerson - if PO in


the process of a lawful Terry frisk & feel something else, must immediately know what it is in order to admit into evidence

3. Did W particularly describe place to be searched & items to be seized?description cant leave anything to discretion of
PO

4. Is oath or affirmation present Hiibel: stop & interrogation to dispel suspicion - Must 1st have RS that crime has been committed/about to be committed. ASK what is the purpose of the interrogation b/c if its to ascertain identity the
identity of possible assailaint it may violate 5th amend but if its in furtherance of the investigation of a reported crime questions may be justified and not deemed violation. If state statute says when PO is in a proper position to stop & interrogate & requires a citizen to give his name, & thats all they ask nothing more, citizen must give name/be arrested. No statute, can walk away.

5. Was warrant reasonably executed


Knock & announce officers

Chambers v. Maroney: PC to vehicle, since the officers could have lawfully searched the vehicle during the stop, there was nothing that constitutionally prohibited their search later. Ct discusses the lesser and greater intrusionshould the car be immobilized until a magistrate authorizes a search. If this is case then determining the lesser and greater will depend on the circumstances at hand. Ct says we see no difference in immobilizing a car until a magistrate authorizes a search and searching a car before authorization is granted. If vehicle is moved and searched later W/O warrant BE CAREFUL it must be a situation analogous to Chambers

must K&A to execute W UNLESS an exigency is present!


1. part of reasonable search and seizure inquiry 2. if dealing w/ perishable, do not have to wait long (15-20 sec) 3. interests: protect life & limb, property, privacy & dignity 4. Wilson no PC TO CONTAINERS Robinson (Containers on your person)- If the container is on the citizen at the time of the search incident to arrest, the police can open it. Police do not have to determine whether there is an PO do not need PC, reasonable suspicion, or warrant Ross: container inside the car and PO have probable cause to the car, PO can search anywhere that reasonably be found. Acevedo: if PC to container out of car and it is put in the car you can now search that container if not placed in car then . Chadwick/Sanders will apply instead of this if the container is sitting near the citizen and the PO can only seize it but not search it. UNLESS the container by its very nature is something that houses dangerous objects.

Evasive actions - Wardlow- PO can stop/frisk immediately if suspect


attempts to evade police in a high crime area

NEXT WAS

SEARCH /SEIZURE REASONABLE.

K&A required if police reasonably believe that knocking will put officers in peril or alert lead to suspects destruction of evidence If so, warrantless arrest is lawful If so, the
subsequent search of person & seizure of items were validly made incident to arrest except Hudson v. Michigan cant

No "seizure" unless the citizen does not feel free to leave and yields to the officers show of authority, is under the officers control, or physical force is used against the citizen. Seizures are not a continuous act. The word "seizure" readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately
Hodari D

A search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable when conducted without a warrant, and we must consider WHOS
MAKING THE ARGUMENT b/c even if 4th implicated only citizens with a legally recognized privacy interest in the place or thing to be seized or searched can raise4th amend 1. STANDING

search for objects not in W HOWEVER seizure of evidence in plain view valid b/c it would be found despite failure to K&A.
Exclusion of evidence would not support the goals of the exclusionary rule-deter illegal police conduct, and the purpose behind the knock and announce rule not frustrated (GO TO PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE) Suspect at home officers must have pc to reasonably believe suspect is

PC TO PERSON IN CAR: Whren: PC to stop (traffic violation)=right to be there=plain view;

4TH AMENDMENT EXCLUSIONARY RULE FIFTH AMENDMENT


- Applies in what kind of proceedings: (1) criminal; (2) any proceeding where person may be subject to later charges (3) may not need to be a proceeding police may ask you questions during an encounter.

4TH AMENDMENT THIRD PARTY CONSENT Matlock (Actual Authority) If two or more people share space, they both assume the risk that the other will let someone come into that space. Roommate can consent to common space (living room) & u cant veto. Randolph if the police see the roommate they need not tell him that his place is going to be searched. If roommate is present, he can object to the search Rodriguez(Apparent Authority) a Warrantless entry is valid when based upon consent of 3rd party whom PO, at time of entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not. If police unsure whether party has authority PO must ask 3rd p if they have authority to consent at moment consent given what facts did PO have to W the reasonable belief that consenting party had authority Is item fruit of poisonous tree (BUTFOR CAUSATION)?

WERE RIGHTS WAIVED Was there a valid waiver? carries the BOP to establish waiver was 1. Was evidenc obtained after violation of 4th 2. Is proceed crim trial/other proc where rule applies? 3. Did PO act in reasonable reliance on W or in GF? 4. Is the evidence offered solely for impeachment? Exclusionary rule: if search unreasonable, unconstitutional, unlawful, this = poisonous tree & evidence should be excluded Weeks: ER applies for all federal cases. If federal actor has acted unconstitutionally,& it leads to incriminating evid, then the ER applies. Based on judicial integrity; Deter unlawful gvt acts Mapp v. Ohio: Applies the ER to all state actors . For: dont want to induce fed officers to evade constitution by getting state actors to do dirty work Challenges: other state remedies to deter: Sue P civilly or criminally; C can use force; file complaint against PO Except PO lie to judge to get W, if u can take out lies & rest of representations support PC, can exclude only lies & still get W if judge not neutral/is a rubber stamp bare bones affidavit; no indicia of reliability in W. GO TO SIXTH AMENDMENT MASSIAH BEHIND BARA Look for how much involvement the government had w/ the informant behind bars Was the gvt agent acting in agent capacity when receiving information; was agent passive (merely listening; gvt did not contact agent to get information from def. for crime charged) or active ($$$$$For information RED FLAG FOR, elicit incriminating information; was $ pd on contingency for production of useful informationDELIBERATELY ELICIT SATISFIEDeven if agent instructed not to elicit because informant and accused in same cell, agent likely to know that such propinquity likely will lead to deliberate elicitation stimulate conversation / Was the person put in a situation likely to induce him to speak). If the accused gives a statement that he was not involved in something and the agent says you have to come up with something better than thatthis is prompting. Court says that stimulating must look like surreptitious interrogationWAS THIS A SNEAKY INTERROGATION?

a. Knowi Principles: the holder of the privilege must assert it and the ng and decides whether to uphold or deny the assertion. An judge incriminating matter need not be a full confession but may intellig merely be a link in the chain. If statute of limitations has passed ent th.

for that particular crime, cant invoke the 5 . If citizen invokes the 5th, the prosecutor can take away his 5th am rights by granting b.immunity

Waiving Miranda Rights Butler- waiver need not be express. Need: Silence + something else. The TOC may justify a wavier BurbineAs long as he didn't know about it, it wasn't waiver. Waiver was not knowing and effective because the thing that was happening with his sister was outside the room. Spring: If you are arraigned on a charge of robbery, and you request a lawyer for that charge, the Michigan v. Jackson nonwaiver rule applies. But when they come to you later, they don't have to tell you what Initiation only applies when the right to counsel has been invoked: Bradshaw: D said well what is going to happen to me now was initiation in this case and citizen agreed to interrogation after receiving the warnings again. Initiation can be ambiguous and police make the determination standard is what a reasonable officer under these circumstances understood (it is the polices word under the totality of the circumstances vs. the citizens word under those circumstances). If statement arises out of the custodial relationship then it is not initiation. Invoking Mirandas Second Level (Silence or Counsel) - Mosley - If D is in custody and has been given warnings, D can cut of questioning by invoking the right to silence or counsel and Police must scrupulously honor the request. IF SILENCE INVOKED Police must allow a reasonable time to go by and when police come back, some permit the same officer to return to the same location after 2hrs, but others req a different officer in a different location. Regardless the questions must be about a different subject matter and Miranda warnings must be re-read. Invoking the right to counsel - must invoke the right to counsel in a clear and unambiguous way. If citizen is in custody and invokes right to counsel after has been given the familiar warnings in the first interrogation, police (must first scrupulously honor) cannot come back for anything ever unless: (1) they bring a lawyer, or (2) citizen initiates ( So what happens next; can I go to the bathroom + something else)

Volunt ary Immunities (not really coextensive w/ the 5th amendment


because you have to give up information. If you assert the 5th you dont give up anything) USE DERIVATIVE USE-prosecutor cannot use immunized testimony or derive other information from immunized testimony to prosecute (prosecutor cannot derive a benefit from that testimony to get other information) HOWEVER prosecutor can argue, we didnt use or derive information to prosecute you; we found independent source for evidence to prosecute you Even if the prosecutor doesnt do this, the prosecutor can prosecute you for perjury. So citizen can be zapped twice perjury; independent evidence; you must produce the information to support your immunization testimony; youve revealed the information is an affirmative defense, so you may be prosecuted, but you have to raise that defense. Cogitateafter the issue in New Orleans a lot of court records were destroyed, citizens were unable to raise this as an affirmative defense b/c the records were lost TRANSACTIONAL/ABSOLUTE-Prosecutor, even if he has an independent source, he cannot use it to prosecute HOWEVER you can still be prosecuted for perjury. You still must assert it as an affirmative defense so the records are important and if theyre destroyed, youve had a bad day. Still disclose the information you didnt want to disclose DOES EITHER OF THE EXCEPTIONS APPLY a. Public safety b. Impeachment IF NO CONTINUE, IF MAYBE ANALYZE

If yes EXCLUDE If gray area look to derivative evid Doctrine a. Did the taint become attenuated? this fruit is not tainted by the original primary illegality that it was derived at another time and another place than the original entry, if its remote in the time and place, why exclude it b. Did PO get info from an independent source? Information from a different source that came after the illegality led to discovery or arresteg. uncoerced confession; anonymous tip; c. Would item have been inevitably discovered? PO would find it anyway b/c plain view; PC+exigency existed outside of warrant
Search Listening sample: It must be determined that one had a constitutionally protected expectation that x would be beyond reach of govt ear. Sub. Expectation alone isnt sufficient for 4th amendment protection, expect. Must be reasonable, one that society is willing to enforce. Courts will look at whether PO had lawful right to be there. Generally, no REP in conversations that can be heard by unaided ear of an eavesdropper lawfully adjoined to apartment/hotel room. Argue: Difference when PO took extraordinary steps to position selves where neighbors nor public would ordinarily be expected to be. Policy & 3rd P consent concerns?

WERE STATEMENTS TESTIMONIAL OR COMMUNICATIVE Physical evidence 4th &5th ISSUES : Schmerber - Police must have a warrant to go inside the body unless there are exigent circumstances, but must make sure that the extraction is done in a medically safe environment in medically safe conditions by a medical professional. Must have a clear indication that there is something inside that persons body that is seizable under the 4th. Have to have more than probable cause and if police have an alternative, they cannot use a procedure that is painful or violates your religion. Under 5th there is a distinction between physical evidence and testimonial evidence. Dcan be compelled to give physical evidence. Bouknight: When government has a substantial, non-criminal regulatory need, citizens have less of a 5th amendment right to assert. If government asserts a governmental need that has nothing to do w/ criminal law, and requires production of records consistent w/ that regulatory need, 2 legal issues involved: (1) act of producing the document implicates the 5th because this can be testimonial; (2) the body of the document doesnt implicate the 5th as long as the need is a regulatory governmental need. Required records doctrine: If you are an artificial entity/corporation/business of some kind, and the government requires you to retain records in order for the government to monitor your business, if the government asks you to produce those records to make sure you are running the business lawfully in order to effectuate its regulatory needs, in producing those records some criminal incriminating evidence is in there, you have had a bad day.

DOES THE DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE DOCTRINE APPLY Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and Miranda: Elstad- first interrogation is unwarned Statement inadmissible, tainted fruit. Second interrogation preceded by familiar warningssecond confession is admissible, fruit of poisonous tree doesnt apply. Stands for the proposition that the second interrogation has no causal link with the first b/c the warnings dissipate the continuation. Seibert: in the circumstances where the interrogation was nearly continuous, the second statement is clearly the product of the invalid first statement and should be suppressed. There is a break btw the first and second interrogation (15-20 minutes), where at the second the police give the familiar warnings and D fails to invoke his right to counsel, and makes incriminating statements. There is a case named Elstad, which stands for the proposition that if the citizen in the first interrogation is unwarned, and they make incriminating statements, we will not allow the prosecutor to use the statements made in the first interrogation b/c it was unwarned. Court in Elstad said that the Fruits doctrine doesnt apply to the Miranda warnings because it is a prophylactic and not a constitutional rule, but if it's the same interrogation, you cannot use Elstead.

7. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

SIXTH AMENDMENT WAIVER RULE


if the citizen does not know hes dealing with the government you can never waive- the only time citizen can waive is if hes not talking to an undercover cop. Look at the totality of the circumstances and ask did def make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his 6th amend righ? If youve3 been indicted for 1 offense eg burglarythe police cannot use the information about the crime youve been indicted for. HOWEVER, if you mention something elseabout a future crime something you havent been indicted for, Massiah DOES NOT APPLY and those things can be used against you.

a. Lawful intrusion b. Item immediately apparent as contraband/evidence-any movement of item to ascertain its legality is unreasonable and excludable under exclusionary rule. c. must be seized w/o committing a 4th violation. Houghton/Horton-discovery need not be inadvertent must be searching where item could reasonably be

WERE ADEQ UATE WARNI NGS PROVI DED? IF NO GO TO

TEST IMON IAL B/C THAT WAS S THER ALL E AN MIRA INTE NDA RRO PROT GATI ECTS ON !!!

The Rule and the Familiar Warnings/Intent to Use at Trial : Miranda v. Arizona - must have: (1) interrogation if police asks express questions of a citizen in an attempt to elicit incriminating statements; (2) custody must be deprived of your freedom in some significant way. If it looks/sounds like an arrest, its probably custody for purposes of Miranda; (3) intent to use at trial (4) incriminating statements to exclude something it must be incriminating. If the elements exist, citizen is entitled to the Miranda familiar warnings: (a) right to remain silent; (b) any statement can be used as evidence against him; (c) right to have attorney present, either retained or

INVENTORY SEARCHES a. Noncriminal purpose b. Limits on police discretion Cannot be a pretext to uncover evidence to use against citizen 1. For SUSPICIONLESS INSPECTIONpermitted when its purpose is administrative and not for the collection of evidence. INVENTORY SEARCHmust be conducted pursuant to established procedure if there is no procedure for an inventory search, a warrant is required. Challenge: Scalia

SIXTH AMENDMENT APPROACH


Was the confession obtained in violation of the 6th Amendment because agent deliberately elicited information Following the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings when the defendant did not waive his right to counsel The 6th amend right to counsel attaches

DOES IT ARISE OUT OF THE SAME TRANSACTION-ARE THE SAME ELEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROVE BOTH CRIMES? Cobb when citizen is involved in multiple acts arising out of one transaction, and there are formal proceedings, and citizen asserts right to counsel: the only way the assertion will attach to the other crimes is if all of the offenses have the same elements in them. If they have different elements they are different offenses.