Criminal Procedure Skinny Case Chart
Michael Barbee Fall 2010
Professor Nowlin
I. Incorporation
a. Duncan – selective incorporation; fundamental right to a jury trial
II. Search & Seizure
a. Boyd – cannot search and seize mere evidence; 4th and 5th about CL property rights
b. Schmerber – 5th = testimonial evidence; 4th requires R determined by PC and SW, privacy
c. Hayden – overrules mere evidence rule
III. What is a Search?
a. Katz – REP test to determine if there is a search, then it must be R to be constitutional
i. False Friends
1. White – assumption of the risk so not a search
2. Hoffa – 4th doesn’t protect misplaced belief that suspect wouldn’t tell gov’t
3. Lopez – recording conversations is constitutional
4. On Lee – transmitting conversations is constitutional
ii. Open Fields & Curtilage
1. Hester – open fields doctrine; not persons, houses, papers, or effects
2. Oliver – REP test applies with open fields doctrine
3. Dunn – gives definition of curtilage and 4 factors
iii. Aerial & Visual Search
1. Ciraolo – visual observations that aren’t physically intrusive aren’t searches
2. Riley – helicopter observation ok as long as no physical damage
3. Knotts – tracking device on a vehicle is not a search
4. Karo – tracking device in a home is a search
iv. Sensory Searches
1. Bond – squeezes are physically intrusive and thus are searches
2. Kyllo – thermal imaging is physically searches and thus a search
3. Place – dog sniffing is not a search b/c no social value
v. Searches in Other Contexts
1. Air Pollution Variance Bd. – visual observation of smoke not a search
2. Hudson – no REP in prison cell so not a search
3. Rakas – passengers have no REP in glove box so not a search
4. Class – no REP in VIN from car
5. Greenwood – no REP in abandoned garbage
IV. What is a Seizure?
a. Seizure of Objects
i. Jacobsen – private actors = no search; seizure of object is when possessory interest
ii. Skinner – if state encourages, participates, or promotes search then is a search
b. Seizure of Persons
i. Mendenhall – use of force or show of authority; heightened coercion
ii. Royer – example of seizure; DEA holding docs means seizure
1. Seizure of Persons in Confined Spaces
- Bostick – confined spaces standard for seizure
- Drayton – example of confined spaces; holding guns not seizure
2. Seizure of Persons by Submission to Authority
- Hodari D. – not seizure until submission to authority
- Brendlin – passengers in a vehicle are seized during stops
V. Exclusionary Rule
a. Weeks – exclusionary rule of evidence applies to states; remedy and judicial integrity
b. Wolfe – exclusionary rule does not apply to states b/c not part of due process clause
c. Mapp – ER is incorporated to the states b/c it is “part and parcel” to the 4th Am.
d. Calandra – ER is a “judge-made prophylactic rule” to prevent 4th Am. violations
e. Dickerson – Miranda rule is constitutional rule; ER is parallel to Miranda
VI. Probable Cause – Is the Search or Seizure Reasonable?
a. Informants (hearsay)
i. Spinelli – 2 prong test: veracity and basis of knowledge
ii. Gates – broadened test to fluid, common sense, TOC test w/ Spinelli test included
1. Quantum of suspicion is more than a mere suspicion
2. For arrests – R belief w/ substantial (30-35%) basis for believing a particular person committed a particular crime
3. For searches and seizures – R belief w/ substantial basis for believing that there is seizable contraband in the place to be searched
iii. Pringle – example of PC; under TOC there was a R belief that drugs were ∆s
b. Pretext
i. Whren – for PC the cop’s subjective intent does not matter
ii. Devenpeck – PC is sufficient even if for a different crime
VII. Warrant Exigencies
a. Hayden – PC plus hot pursuit exigency made search of ∆’s home reasonable
b. Welsch – there is no cold pursuit exigency and exigency requires more than minor offense
c. Stuart – search to render emergency medical assistance is sufficient exigency
d. Vale – search must be substantially contemporaneous to exigency; can’t create exigency
e. McArthur – seizure of person for fear of destroying evidence was sufficient exigency
VIII. The Automobile Exception to SW
a. Maroney – PC plus in an automobile makes a search of the car reasonable
b. Carney – automobile must be readily mobile, appear used for transp., and on public prop.
IX. Containers
a. Chadwick – PC plus container is not enough for search; no exception for containers
i. The Automobile Exception and Containers
1. Sanders – can’t search containers in a car
2. Ross – can search containers in cars b/c auto exception attaches to container
3. Acevedo – overruled Sanders; PC plus container in car or trunk is R search
4. Houghton – can search a purse as part of Acevedo holding
5. Di Re – auto exception doesn’t extend to people’s clothing they are wearing
X. Warrants
a. Warrant Requirement for Seizures of Persons
i. Watson – no warrant required for felony arrest in public; no AW preference
ii. Gerstein – arrest w/ no warrant requires magistrate to promptly determine PC
iii. McLaughlin – promptly means within 48 hours of arrest
b. Full Custodial Arrest
i. Atwater – officer can make FCA w/o warrant even for minor offenses
ii. Moore – federal law trumps state law not allowing arrest
c. Arrests in the Home
i. Payton – to enter a house w/o SW, must have AW and R belief arrestee’s in house
ii. Steagald – must obtain AW and SW to enter third party’s house
d. Searches Incident to Arrest
i. Chimel – can search person and person’s reaching distance sub. contemp. to arrest
ii. Robinson – can search containers found on person; supergold case
iii. Knowles – searches incident to traffic citations not R b/c seizure not FCA
e. SIA of Vehicles
i. Belton – cops can search passenger compartment incident to arrest
ii. Thornton – Belton applies to recent occupants out of car
iii. Gant – narrows Belton; if arrestee is unsecured and in reaching distance of passenger compartment or R belief that evidence related to crime might be found in vehicle, then no PC or SW to search passenger compartment of vehicle
f. Protective Sweeps
i. Buie – no PC or R suspicion required; limited to cursory visual search of places immediately adjoining the place of arrest; R suspicion beyond that
XI. Stops, Frisks, and the Right to be Secure
a. Terry – 2-prong test for stop and frisk; R suspicion crime’s afoot and armed and dangerous
b. Wardlow – R suspicion is an obj. common sense, fluid, TOC analysis requiring articulable facts for basis of suspicion from which R inferences can be drawn; lower than PC
c. Tips and Terry Stops
i. White – anonymous tips can form basis for R suspicion
ii. J.L. – anonymous tips must have predictive details to form basis for R suspicion
d. Examples of R suspicion
i. Reed – example of no R suspicion; airport Terry stop
ii. Royer – example of R suspicion; airport Terry stop
iii. Arvizu – when developing R suspicion, officers may draw on their experiences
e. Dickerson – plain touch doctrine; must stop frisk after you determine it’s not a weapon
f. Sharpe – duration of frisk should only be a few minutes
g. Dunaway – significant movement and seizure intensity makes Terry stop become FCA
h. Long – extends Terry stop to include car
i. Hensley – you can detain someone if you R suspicion they are wanted for a felony
XII. Exits in Traffic Stops – Seizure w/in Seizure
a. Mimms – officers can make driver exit the car w/ R suspicion
b. Wilson – officers can also make passengers exit w/ R suspicion
c. Johnson – officers can frisk passenger and driver if R suspicion
XIII. Search Warrants
a. Ybarra – cannot stop and frisk others on premises of SW; bar case
b. Summers – you can seize owner of premises you have a SW for
XIV. Inventory Searches
a. Lafayette – requirement for post-arrest inventory search: arrest, incarceration, SOP
b. Bertine – post-arrest inventory search of vehicle ok if Lafayette requirements met
c. Wells – inventory search of containers in vehicle ok if SOP are in place
XV. Checkpoints
a. Brown – balance the subjective and objective intrusion on the individual’s liberty against state interest and the effectiveness of checkpoint in advancing that interest
b. Sitz – checkpoints are brief seizures that are ok if pass Brown balancing test
c. Edmund – adds prong 2; primary purpose of checkpoint must satisfy special need
d. Special Needs Cases
i. Lidster – checkpoint looking for specific fugitive is ok
ii. Ramsey – border searches are R; special need in drug and immigration control
iii. TLO – search of student ok if R suspicion and limited to areas in that suspicion
iv. Acton – random drug-testing of student athletes is ok
v. Earls – random drug-testing of students involved in extracurriculars is ok
vi. Ortega – search of gov’t worker’s office ok if R suspicion of misconduct
vii. Von Raab – gov’t agents engaged in drug interdiction can be drug-tested
viii. Skinner – drug and alcohol tests for RR employees involved in accidents ok
ix. Chandler – candidates for state-elected offices cannot be drug-tested
XVI. Consent Searches
a. Bustamonte – search by consent is ok if consent is voluntary; State has BOP voluntary under TOC; look for heightened coercion
b. Robinette – consent searches during traffic stops are ok
c. Jimeno – scope of consent search extends to all areas R believed to be w/in scope of consent; objective standard; locked suitcase = no consent
d. Matlock – co-tenants assume risk of common authority and can consent to search
e. Randolph – consent by one tenant is not valid if another expressly refuses
f. Rodriquez – apparent authority to consent in eyes of cops makes consent search R
g. Bumper – consent b/c of fake SW is submission to show of authority, so no consent
XVII. Plain View Doctrine
a. Horton – PVD; lawful vantage point, right of access to object, and seizable nature of the object must be immediately apparent; no requirement of inadvertent discovery
XVIII. Excessive Force
a. Conner – excessive force can make arrest (seizure) unR; looks to seriousness of crime and threat and degree of suspect’s resistance under TOC
b. Garner – to use deadly force, must be PC that shows suspect was threat of serious harm, R belief that shooting perp was necessary, and warning given if feasible; usually unR
c. Scott – speed chase force (deadly force) is basically per se constitutional
XIX. Standing
a. Rakas – no REP as passenger in car so no standing to suppress evidence
b. Rawlings – must demonstrate REP was violated to challenge search; no standing
c. Olsen – overnight guest in a home has REP in home so has standing to bring claim
d. Carter – extended Rakas to home; ∆ must show personal REP in home to have standing; social guests in home have no REP (overnight guests have REP – Olsen)
XX. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
a. Independent Source Rule
i. Murray – independent source rule; requires that no facts obtained from illegal first search were required for magistrate to determine PC for 2nd and motivation for 2nd search didn’t result from first search; but-for and proximate cause
ii. Segura - ∆ argued that but-for the illegal search he could’ve destroyed evidence
b. Inevitable Discovery Rule
i. Nix – independent search would’ve resulted in “inevitable discovery” if not called off b/c of illegal interrogation admission; show by prep. of evidence (>50%)
c. Attenuation
i. Brown – lack of proximity of evidence to original taint of evidence (4th Am. violation) means too attenuated and thus evidence is admissible; 5-factor TOC test
ii. Ceccolini – adds “nature of evidence” factor; if testimony then attenuates faster
iii. Hudson – policy attenuation; type of 4th Am. violation relevant now; K&A case
d. Good Faith Exception
i. Leon – when officer R relies on other’s determinations (magistrates) then FOPT evidence is not suppressed since officer acted in GF
ii. Kroll – if officer R relies on legislation then evidence is not excluded as FOPT
iii. Evans – if officer R relies on court clerks then evidence is not excluded as FOPT
iv. Herring – if officer R relies on police clerk, clerk must be non-negligent or merely negligent for GF exception to apply; if grossly negligent then evidence suppressed
e. Impeachment Limitation
i. Walder – evidence suppressed by ER is admissible to impeach if: made during direct, concerned an uncharged crime, and made by ∆ (not witness)
ii. Harris – modified Walder; took out uncharged crime req.; charged crimes ok too
iii. Havens – modified Walder; impeaching statement can be on cross as long as w/in scope of questions on direct (opened the door)
iv. James – impeachment exception only applies to testimony of ∆
XXI. Confessions and Interrogation
a. Voluntariness Test
i. Spano – Voluntariness TOC test: under TOC, did the cops overreach, such that the suspect’s will was overborne; physical force, threat physical force, psych. coercion
ii. Mincey – example case; confession in ICU involuntary thus inadmissible
iii. Conelly – ∆ confessed then later said he was mentally insane; cop didn’t overreach
iv. Chavez – if interrogation shocks the conscience then it’s unconstitutional
b. Miranda Warnings
i. Miranda – must be procedural safeguards used during interrogation; prior to questioning must be warned: (1) silent, (2) statement used as evidence against, (3) attorney, (4) one will be appointed. Rights can be waived if voluntary, knowing and intelligent.