- 1 Prosecutorial Discretion
- 2 Application of the Bill of Rights to the States under the 14th Amend:
- 3 Right to Counsel
- 4 Searches And Seizures
- 4.1 The Exclusionary Rule
- 4.2 Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
- 4.3 Protected Areas and Interests - Expectations of Privacy
- 4.4 Facts: newspaper agency searched b/c the agency was suspected to have photographs of those who were involved riot/demonstration. The newspaper was challenging the warrant on the basis that: (1) They were not suspects in the investigation; (2) The secrecy of their confidential informants and sources may be compromised; (3) The 1st A.: such a search would stop them from asserting their freedom of speech in that the paper would be slowed by the search.
- 4.5 Probable Cause – a warrant must be based on an adequate showing of probable cause.
- 4.6 Warrantless Arrests and Searches of the Person
- 4.7 Searches of Premises
- 4.8 Background Cases
- 4.9 Investigative Stops: Stop and Frisk
- 4.10 Grounds for Temporary Seizure for Investigation
- 4.11 Administrative Searches
- 4.12 Consent Searches
- 4.13 III. Implications and Interpretations of Miranda
- 4.14 Custody, Warnings, and Interrogation
- 4.15 E. Impact of Miranda in Practice and Techniques
- 4.16 Due Process, Voluntariness and Right to Counsel REVISITED
- 4.17 SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULES
- 4.17.1 I. Standing to Object
- 4.17.2 II. FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
- 4.17.3 A. The doctrine that illegally obtained evidence shall not be used for the purpose of gaining other evidence; once the original evidence, the “tree,” is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, all evidence stemming from it, the “fruit,” is equally unusable. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)
- 4.17.4 H. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
- 4.17.5 III. The Impeachment Exception (to the exclusionary rule)
- 4.17.6 THE GRAND JURY
- 4.18 ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
- What are the factors considered in prosecuting a crime?
- Severity of the crime
- Probability of conviction/ sufficiency of evidence
- Factors re the Offender:
- motivation of the offender
- past record – dangerous to society
- Resource allocation of prosecutors – there are more severe crimes that should be prosecuted
- Public Eye - Reflects poorly on office/police to prosecute bogus crimes
- Alternative Sanctions/ diversion program
- Lafave: 3 reasons we need prosec discretion
- enforcement resources are limited
- need to individualize justice
- Prosecutorial Discretion and Legislative Intent:
- Separation of Powers – if the legislature did make it a criminal act to commit this offense (ex. Smokey the Bear Hype) – is it the role of the prosecutor’s office to determine which laws should be enforced and which should not? Isn’t this sort of an example of the executive interpreting the intentions of the legislature?
- Cf. Legislatures are not very good about going through the books and cleaning up these laws which are out of date or ridiculous.
- Considerations when P charges maximum penalty for minor offense b/c she “knows” that D is guilty of more serious unprovable crimes (when a defendant’s possible involvement in other crime for which there is insufficient evidence – may persuade a prosecutor to charge the highest sentence allowable):
- Within Leg. Provisions: Still operating within the terms of legislation provided (max. penalty) – therefore you cannot go to an unreasonable extreme. On the other hand, this may be an offense which is never prosecuted to its fullest extent, never to the limits allowed be legislation.
- Judge Ultimate Sentencer: The prosecution can only push for a particular sentence – there is still the backstop of the judge who can conform to norms and only to the routine sanction. The judge may not consider the D’s possible criminal involvement in the sentencing determination.
- ABA Standards for Prosecution:
- 3-2.5(a) - each office should have a handbook of policies which guide them in their discretion.
- 3-25(b) – the handbook should be open to the public, except for subject matters which are deemed “confidential.”
- Challenging the Prosecutor’s Discretion - Judicial Deference to Prosecutorial Discretion:
- Inmates of Attica p. 862 – the inmates sought a writ of mandamus to require federal official to investigate and prosecute guards who had violated federal statutes in treatment of inmates in the prison. Mandamus can only compel someone to do a mandatory (not discretionary) act. Plaintiff relies on a statute which “authorizes and requires” the U.S. attorneys to institute prosecutions against all persons violating the act The court finds that the “requires” language does not preclude prosec. discretion and will not issue a mandamus.
- Protection of Confidential Info. - Decision to prosecute may be based on confidential information and in this case any person could otherwise just file a complaint containing allegations in general terms of unlawful failure to prosecute and gain access to the prosecutor’s file and the grand jury’s minutes, not withstanding the confidentiality normally attached to such documents.
- Rule: Selective prosecution defense must show a discriminatory effect motivated by a discriminatory purpose: clear evidence that others who were similarly situated (whites) were not prosecuted and that this was done for discriminatory reasons.
- Selective-Prosecution claim: an assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution.
- Significance: a party alleging selective prosecution can’t even get, through discovery, a prosecutor’s cases b/c this would impact how prosecutions take place – this shows again how very much the court will defer to pros. discretion.
- Batchelder – Discretion to charge under harsher law: the defendant was prosecuted under a five yr. sentence in a statute when another statute with all the same elements mandated only a two year lid. Same conduct, diff penalty. Again, the court upheld the prosecutor’s discretion to charge under the harsher statute.
Application of the Bill of Rights to the States under the 14th Amend:
- “Total Incorporation” of Bill of Rights: this approach was never adopted by a majority of the Court. J. Black was its biggest supporter.
- “Fundamental Fairness” Approach: This was the approach used until the 1960’s. It overlaps with “Selective Incorporation” approach below. The Court would apply the rt. to the states if it found that the rt. was fundamental to a fair and just criminal trial. Value of rights under facts of case. Powell (indigent, capitol case, ppl of color get atty). Betts.
- “Selective Incorporation” of the Bill of Rights: A SC majority has never held that the 14th Amend. “totally” incorporates all provisions of the Bill of Rights. Instead the SC has selectively incorporated many of the individual rights of the first eight amendments of the Const. to the states through the 14th Amend. Due Process Clause. Today, nearly all the rights of the fed const. have been constitutionally required in state cases as well. Focus on value of right in our system. Gideon. If a right applies, it applies “jot for jot”—the scope of the right is the same in fed and states.
- Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) – the Due Process Clause of the 14th amend. merely requires “fundamental fairness” in state criminal proceedings. Here, the SC stated that those portions of the Bill of Rights that are “fundamental to our concept of ordered liberty” have been so incorporated.
# Independent Due Process grounds: Before the right in the federal const. has been selectively incorporated as to apply to states under the 14th amend. – one can still make a generalized due process claim against the state. This is rare now as most rights have been applied to states.
- Ex. Rochin v. California: D was restrained while a heroine capsule was removed from his stomach by a stomach pump. The SC decided that this evidence gathering “shocked the conscience” as was impermissible on DP grounds. The S.C. had not yet applied the 4th amend. to the states as this time (1952).
- Breithaupt v. Abram: DP not violated when police take blood sample from unconscious person who was involved in fatal automobile collision. Sample showed intoxication.
- Supervisory Powers: Federal Courts have supervisory power in fed cases. Power over rules and process, certain types of cases drawn on when Con does not cover the conduct.
- McNabb v. U.S. (1943): Court held that while the power to undo state court conviction is limited to those “fundamental rights” secured by the 14th amend. to the states, the federal court does have the power to use its supervisory authority to ensure just administration of criminal justice – “quite apart from the Constitution.”
- U.S. v. Payner (1980): briefcase caper. supervisory power may not be applied to permit defendant to invoke third party’s 4th Amend. rights. “The supervisory power does not authorize a federal court to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that it was seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court [in violation of another person’s const. rights].”
- U.S. v. Hastings (1983): SC held that federal courts cannot use their supervisory powers to reverse a conviction where a prosecutor has violated Griffen v. CA – commenting on the failure of the D to take the stand in his own defense – an error that is otherwise deemed “harmless” and not capable of grounds for reversal.
Right to Counsel
- Sixth Amendment Rt. to Counsel: The 6th Amend. provides in part that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . .to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” This federal rt. was made applicable to the states, via the 14th amend, in 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright (see below).
# Powell v. Alabama (1932): Rt. to Counsel in state trial on Due Process Grounds only. Black youths were hurried to trial for a capital offense, w/o adequate time to consult or retain counsel. The court held that in light of all the facts, the failure of the trial court to afford the Ds reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel was clear denial of due process. While this was the first case in which a const. right to appointed counsel was found by the SC to exist in a particular state trial, court did NOT apply the 6th amend and limited holding to DP grounds.
# Betts v. Brady (1942): The Sixth Amend. rt. to counsel does not apply to state trials. An indigent was indicted for robbery. His request for counsel was denied b/c local practice permitted appointment only in rape and murder cases. He was then tried without counsel and without a jury – he did not take the stand and was convicted for 8 yrs. The court here said that the 14th amend. does not incorporate the specific guarantee founding the 6th Amend.
- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)– Betts overruled – 6th Amend. Rt to Counsel Guaranteed in State Court. Gideon was charged in FL state with breaking and entering into a poolroom. D’s request for counsel was denied b/c, despite the fact that he was being charged with a felony, it was not a capitol offense requiring counsel under FL law.
- Selective Incorporation Approach – USSC applies 6th amend. to the states through the 14th, based on the value of the rt. in our system: “Any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” Comes at a time of shifting from a fundamental fairness to a selective incorp. analysis.
- Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972): No person can be imprisoned unless represented by atty. Even though D charged with petty misdemeanor (less than 6 months jail), and does not get jury trial, D still gets atty.
- Scott v. Illinois (1979): USSC declines to extend Argersinger to a case where one is charged with an offense for which imprisonment upon conviction is authorized but not actually imposed. In other words, even if the offense charged is a felony under state law, the state does not have to supply an indigent with counsel as long as the judge is willing merely to impose a fine.
- NOTE: But the trial has not yet occurred when the court has to make this decision and the judge may not know the facts of the case, the prior record of the D, etc. So he is not able to consider these issues when making the charge or limiting the sentence. Often, as a result of this uncertainty of decision, some counties will provide counsel for any offense except the most mundane traffic violations.
- 18 USC § 3006A: fed statute governing fed crim proceedings. Congress goes further than 6th Amend requires. Get counsel in habeus proceedings.
# When does the 6th Amend. Rt. to Counsel Attach? Right to counsel attaches at (1) a “critical stage” of crim proceeding (2) after adversary judicial proceedings have commenced. Unlike Miranda (5th Amend), D does not have to be in custody.
# criminal “prosecution”: The requirement that there be a ‘prosecution’ means that the right to counsel attaches only after the time that the adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against an accused. and after adversary judicial proceedings have begun, after a case has been filed (after the prosecution has initiated the charge).
- a “critical stage”: The following have been deemed a critical stage where the rt. attaches:
- formal charge- Note: pre-charge, when suspect has not expressed desire for counsel, the right to counsel is triggered by forces that “jeopardize” the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, it has no life of its own.
- Initial Appearance – D is informed of the charges against him, told of his rt. to counsel, to remain silent, and, if a felony, his rt. to a preliminary examination.
- Preliminary Hearing – Prosecution presents evidence to show that there is probable cause to “bind over” or “hold over” D for trial.
- Indictment/ information.
- Arraignment – charges are read, and D enters a plea.
- Psychiatric Examination.
# Note: Rt. to counsel during police interrogation (Miranda) is NOT protected by 6th amend but is a 5th amend. protection against self-incrimination.
- 18 USC § 3000(a) in Supp. – Sets up a system for the rt. to counsel for indigent Ds. Goes beyond the constitution with respect to the kinds of cases for which counsel is appointed. The way the counsel was appointed or not appointed may violate the statute then without violating the constitution. The statute requires counsel to be appointed even if imprisonment is not necessarily imposed, where the D is charged with a felony or class A misdemeanor. Sets maximum amount for which counsel may earn in defense.
- Appeals & the Rt. to Counsel – Equal Protection/Due Process Concerns:
# Griffin v. Illinois – EP/DP of 14th Amend require that all indigent Ds be furnished a transcript, at least where allegations that manifest errors occurred at the trial are not denied: all indigents, not just those sentenced to death, are allowed a free transcript to assist them appeal. Con does not require state to provie appeal, but when a state grants the right to appeal, it cannot do so in a way that discriminates against convicted individuals because of their poverty.
# Douglas v. CA (1963)- Mandated Rt. to Counsel in Automatic Appeals. When a state provides an appeal as a matter of rt., counsel must be provided for indigents. The Court in Douglas struck down a CA rule where appellate courts appointed counsel only if it would be “helpful” to the D or the court.
- Equal Protection violated: EP violated when the “rich man, who appeals as a matter of right, enjoys the benefit of counsel’s examination of the record, research of the law, and marshalling of argument, while the indigent, already burdened by the preliminary determination that his case is without merit, is forced to shift for himself.”
- Dissent – DP analysis: He says that here is no functional need for counsel to be appointed, when the court screens the cases to see if they have any merit and that counsel should be appointed. DP is a balancing test. However, all the screening process has at its disposal are the written motions work and the trial transcript, which if the indigent doesn’t have counsel won’t show very much clarity, in addition the screening function would be overwhelming as the trial transcript would be huge.
# Ross v. Moffit (1974) – No Rt. to Counsel for Discretionary Appeals:– D wants counsel for the discretionary appeal for the NC SC, or to file petition for certiorari in USSC. On appeal, an atty acts as a sword to upset the prior determination of guilt.
# Mostly DP analysis: Ct focused on whether the D sans attny has a meaningful opportunity to provide the court with an adequate basis for decision to deny or grant review. Ct acknowledges an indigent D seeking discretionary review is handicapped in comparison with a wealthy D who has counsel.
- Indigent still has adequate resources: Crt says D will have at his disposal a transcript of record, an appellate brief, and the decision of the appellate court – all this would provide the NCSC. with an adequate basis for its decision. Court then leaves it up to the states to grant rep. on second appeal.
- Evitts v. Lucey: 6th Amend right to counsel extended to 1st appeal as of right (regardless of 14th Amend)
# Smith v. Robbins: This case is about a first appeal as of rt. in CA. Court held that the states are free to adopt procedures to decipher which claims for appeal are frivolous and which are not. These procedures must ensure that there is a sufficient procedure and one that allows careful review of the appeal in order to determine its validity. The court upheld the procedure in CA. In assessing the Wende procedure – the court applied a fundamental fairness analysis. (what does all of this mean???)
# Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) – Indigent D has a Rt. to Expert Services if sanity is significant issue to defense: D has right to psychiatrist when:
- D makes preliminary showing that sanity will be significant factor at trial
- State presents evidence of future dangerousness for capital sentencing
- Ct says fundamental fairness (DP) entitles indigent defendant’s to ‘an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system’ – identifying the ‘basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal’: but what are the basic tools? forensic evidence experts, etc.
Searches And Seizures
The Exclusionary Rule
- 4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the paces to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
- No warrant requirement - the amend. does not say that a search warrant must be issued, it only states that where one is issued it must be based on a reasonable/probable cause.
- Does not define “reasonable” or “unreasonable”
- does not talk about exclusionary rule
# Exclusionary Rule originally held NOT to apply to States through 14th Amend. - Wolf v. Colorado (1949) (p. 108)
- Issue: Does exclusionary rule (Weeks v. U.S.) apply to state prosecutions?
- Held: In a prosecution in a State Court for a State crime, the 14th Amend. does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.
- The court views Weeks as a supervisory ruling – one of “judicial implication.” The 4th Amend applies to states, but states can decide how to remedy a violation.
# Mapp v. Ohio – Exclusionary Rule Applied to States through DPC of 14th Amend (1961) (p.110):
- Holding: All evidence obtained by searches and seizure in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in state court.
- Overrules Wolf: Wolf’s assertion that other methods of determent were available to the States was found, 12 yrs. later, to be incorrect. A majority of the states had passed an exclusionary rule, and other remedies imposed have been “worthless and futile.”
- Shift from fundamental fairness to selective incorporation—looking at exclusionary rule system-wide.
- Coerced confessions are excluded regardless of the frequency of such police conduct.
- Exclusionary Rule part of 4th Amend.: Here, the exclusionary rule is part and parcel with the 4th amendment, b/c it is necessary to have this rule to encourage officers to comply with the 4th amend – search warrants, probable cause, etc.
- Judicial Integrity prong: Nothing can destroy a gov’t more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse its disregard of the character of its own existence. If the court becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for the law . . .”
Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule
- Good Faith Exception - U.S. v. Leon (1984) (p. 114):
- Facts: Cops had warrant to search, but there was not probable cause to issue warrant.
- The exclusionary rule does not operate so as “to bar the use in the prosecution’s case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance in a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to unsupported by probable cause.” Court says exclusionary rule is judicially-created remedy, not part of Con.
- Objective Rule: “reasonable [good faith] reliance” – Like Tort’s Reasonable Man
- Exclusionary rule designed to deter police misconduct, not to punish the honest mistakes of judges/magistrates..
- Exception only extend to “good faith”: The court does note that where there is evidence that the warrant is issued under intentionally false information or that the info. wholly lacks a showing of probable cause, the evidence obtained should be excluded.
- Go through chronologically in applying Exception: What did the officer first know, what was his next step - based upon the information he knew before each step, was the next step reasonable?
- U.S v. Lopez-Mendoza: No extension of Leon and the good faith exception to a warrantless search, even if the officers did not know nor should have known that they were acting contrary to the Fourth Amend. Distinguish from Leon b/c no neutral decision-maker here.
# Evidence not excluded when Wrong Warrant Form used- Mass. v. Sheppard (1984) (note case p.126): The SC, relying on Leon, upheld the conviction of a defendant where evidence was obtained through the accidental issuing of the wrong warrant form. Here there was a neutral decision-maker.
- Exclusionary Rule Does NOT Apply to Foreign Nationals - U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) (n. case p. 137): 4th Amend. protections do not apply to foreign national who lacks sufficient connection to the U.S. V-U was brought to the U.S. and prosecuted here, but the search took place in Mexico.
- “People” of 4th amend.: “refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community” or who have developed such a connection to the community. Foreign National (here a Mexican citizen) doesn’t qualify.
- No warrant required.
Protected Areas and Interests - Expectations of Privacy
- Reasonable Expectation of Privacy - Katz v United States (1967)
# FBI agent put microphone in phone booth. 4th Amend protects people, not places.
- Test: Does person have r. expectation of privacy? Objective and subjective
- Subjective prong – Person must exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy.
(2) Objective prong - Expectation is one that society deems is reasonable (is the expectation of privacy objectively reasonable).In concurring opinion, Harlan concludes that a person has a legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy while making a phone call in a telephone booth.
- Non-trespassory intrusion: A 4th Amend violation can occur even when no physical entrance into the area occupied by the D. In other words, you need not have a property interest to have expectation of privacy. “Bum under bridge” hypo.
- Trash Bag on Street - California v. Greenwood (1988)
- Held: The court here finds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a trash bag left on the street.
- Reasoning under Katz :
- Subjective Prong: The respondent does not exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy where he turns over his trash and leaves it open and readily accessible to animals, children, and snoops. In addition, the respondent knows that the trash will be picked up by a third person (a city trash collector) and therefore puts it out for the express purpose of having strangers take it.
- Objective Prong: Police cannot be expected to avert their eyes from criminal evidence that could have been observed by any member of the public. The court notes that while CA recognizes a rt. to privacy in trash, this state rt. does not mandate federal recognition – what one state imposes does not mean that “society as a whole” regards this as an objective expectation of privacy. Rather, states are free to impose more stringent constraints on police conduct than does the Federal Constitution – here the case is not about state law, but it is about an interpretation of federal law.
# Hypo: What about if you turn over your trash to a paper shredder co. and FBI attempts to grab this trash? This could be distinguished from Greenwood, b/c here you are not turning your trash over to the public or making it open to public exposure. Is this difference dispositive then of accepting an expectation of privacy? Is giving an article to a third party a surrendering of your expectation of privacy? No – if you also consider examples of mail delivery, but in the hypo the subjective prong may hinge on what the co.’s policy and contract states that they are not to look at the trash, how they pick up the trash (is it gathered by them or placed in sealed bags by the owners, etc.
- Does Greenwood apply even when D has resorted to rather extraordinary means to ensure that the incriminating character of his garbage is not perceived by others?
- Helicopter used to surveil partially covered Greenhouse Florida v. Riley (1989)
- Held: NO reasonable expectation of privacy in green house where a helicopter flies 400 ft. over the greenhouse to observe marijuana.
- Reasoning: The court focused on the FAA regulations here, stating that since it did not violate these regulations to fly 400 ft. above, then a homeowner cannot reasonably expect privacy of an uncovered greenhouse. The court also noted that there was no interference with the property here – no dust and dirt flying about. The FAA regulations and interference with the prop. are not necessarily dispositive of the court’s decision, but are used in a balancing with almost an infinite variety of facts.
- Dissent: the issue is not whether it was legal to fly at that altitude, but whether there was any real, practical likelihood that the public would fly where the police were flying, not whether the public had an abstract legal right to do so.
====== Effects ======
- Bond v. US (2000): police squeezing luggage of everyone on bus violates 4th Amend. Person does not expect luggage to be squeezed in exploratory way
- Hypo: “poofing” (squeeze and smell) of luggage checked at airport. Person here has relinquished control. This is one factor which shows there is less expectation of privacy.
Enhancing the Senses
- United States v. Place (p.164) – No privacy violation with canine sniff
- Held: There is no unreasonable search when a luggage is temporarily seized and sniffed by a narcotics dog at airport.
- Rationale: There is no intrusion. There is no one rummaging through the luggage, no embarrassment, little inconvenience, the luggage is already in the public view. “We know of no other investigative procedure that is so limited in both the manner in which the information is obtained and in the content of the information revealed by the procedure.”
- The “plain odor” doctrine: This ruling at least implies that just as viewing objects in “plain view” does not constitute a search, so perceiving the nature of an object by the smell it emits does not constitute a search.
- US v. Jacobsen: when police lawfully come upon white powder in a package originally open by a private party, an on-the-spot chemical test of a trace of the powder which reveals whether it is coke is NOT A SEARCH. (relies on Place)
- likelihood that official conduct like this will actually compromise any legit interest in privacy is too remote to characterize the testing as a search subject to the 4th A.
- Dissent: under court’s analysis, law enforcement officers could release a cocaine-trained dog to roam the streets at random…
# Under the plain view doctrine, law officers may use these enhancing devices:
- Flashlights – Texas v. Brown (1983).
- Binoculars – Johnson v. State (1967)
- Aerial camera- Photographic Magnification- Dow Chemical Company (1986) (p. 157)
- Electronic Tracking:
- US v. Knotts: use of a beeper to track Ds did not constitute a search under the 4th A. Officers relied on visual surveillance as well as the beeping to track D while en route in car. Beeper was installed with consent of the chemical co on container.
# US v. Karo: Installing a beeper in a container with consent of original owner and then delivering the container to an unsuspecting buyer is NOT a search BUT monitoring the beeper does implicate the 4th A when it reveals information that could not have been obtained through visual surveillance.
What may be seized ?# Gouled v. U.S. (1921) – The “Mere Evidence” Rule: here the Court held that mere incriminating evidence of a crime cannot be seized in a search, seizure could only properly be made “when the property is an instrumentality or fruit of crime, or contraband.”
- Warden v. Hayden (1967) – Gould’s “Mere Evidence” Rule Deemed Bullshit: the Court overruled Gould and allowed the seizure of an alleged robber’s clothes. The Court stated that the “mere evidence” rule was unreasonably prohibitive and only protects privacy interests arbitrarily.
3. Fifth Amend. not applied to Search Warrants: Anderson v. Maryland (1976) (p. 160) # Facts: there was a search warrant issued to search the petitioner’s law offices and also corp. offices for specified documents pertaining to a fraudulent sale of land. The papers found in the execution of the warrant were admitted against the petitioner at his trial and he was convicted.
- 5th A. issue: The fifth amendment issue here in question is whether the papers, prepared by the petitioner, compelled the P to testify against himself in violation of the Fifth Amend.
- Holding - Subpoena [duces tecum] vs. Search Warrant: The court held: while a D is protected against producing evidence against himself, he is not protected against its production through a valid search warrant.
- Therefore, while the 5th Amend . protects against an individual. having to comply with a subpoena for the production of personal records in his possession, a seizure of the same material by law enforcement officers differs – the individual is not directed to aid in the discovery, production, or authentication of the incriminating evidence. No compulsion—officers do it all.
== Warrants Against Non-Suspects - Zurcher v Stanford Daily (1978) (p. 163): ==
Facts: newspaper agency searched b/c the agency was suspected to have photographs of those who were involved riot/demonstration. The newspaper was challenging the warrant on the basis that: (1) They were not suspects in the investigation; (2) The secrecy of their confidential informants and sources may be compromised; (3) The 1st A.: such a search would stop them from asserting their freedom of speech in that the paper would be slowed by the search.
- Holding: Valid warrants may be issued to search any property, whether or not occupied by a 3rd party, so long as there is probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found. If the officers don’t know where the evidence may be, then perhaps a subpoena is more appropriate, but not mandated .
Probable Cause – a warrant must be based on an adequate showing of probable cause.
- What constitutes probable cause for a search warrant? – Officers must present to a magistrate sufficient underlying facts and circumstances that a reasonable person would conclude that siezable evidence would be found on the premises or person to be searched – Carroll v. U.S.
- Affidavits based on Hearsay:
- Aguilar Two Prong (Validity-Veracity) Test: material from an informant could suffice to establish probable cause for a search warrant only if two conditions were met –
- Veracity – credibility or reliability: there had to be evidence that the informant was a reliable witness b/c he had been reliable in the past, or b/c there were special reasons to believe that his information in this particular case was reliable.
# Facts: Spinelli was charged with crossing state lines with the intent to engage in gambling. Here the affidavit set out four things: (1) That the FBI had monitored Spinelli’s movements as he had gone over the state line several times and into an apt.; (2) there were two phone lines in the apt; (3) Spinelli is “known” as a bookie; (4) a “confidential and reliable informant” states that Spinelli is running a booking gig out of the apt.
- Application of Validity-Veracity Test: Can the tip, standing alone, be proven to be “trustworthy”: (1) Is the informant’s “source of knowledge” solid?; (2) Is the informant’s report reliable – veracity?
- Holding: The court found that the affidavit did not substantiate these two prongs in that it did not detail how the informant came about this information, nor was the information given so specific and corroborated that it could properly be deemed reliable.
- Significance: The court in Spinelli makes it clear that these two prongs are separate and each must be proven separately. An informant can’t have a basis of knowledge, but not have been very reliable, etc. Even an incredibly strong showing that the informant had always been reliable, or was almost surely accurate in this case, could not make up for the failure to disclose how the informant came by the facts of his report.
# Illinois v. Gates (1983) (p. 169)– Totality of the Circumstances Test – Overrules Aguilar/Spinelli:
- Facts: Officers received a letter stating that a couple was involved in narcotics distribution and detailed the driving and traveling of the couple to Florida to pick up the drugs. The cops then monitored the suspects travels which were almost entirely consistent with the tip (except that the tip said that the wife would drive back from Florida, while in fact she drove back with her husband).
# Holding: Here the court rejected the Aguilar/Spinelli two part test and asserted: a warrant may be issued based on affidavits that are entirely hearsay if the affidavit shows by the totality of the circumstances that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of the crime will be found in the particular case.
- Aguilar test only used as a factor of consideration for Totality of Circumstances: The reliability of the informant’s report and the basis of his knowledge are only considerations that go to the totality of the circumstances – but these elements are neither fatal nor sufficient in and of themselves. All that is required of an affidavit is that all the allegations, taken together, permit the magistrate to make a common sense evaluation of the probable cause.
# Review of Warrant on Motion to Suppress after Gates and Leon:
# “Substantial Basis” Test for judge/magistrate: how do you review a magistrate’s “totality of the circumstances” decision when there is then filed a motion to suppress? The backward looking inquiry focuses on whether there was a “substantial basis” for concluding that probable cause existed.
# Leon & Gates: Gates preceded Leon – after Leon the court reviewing the motion to suppress must ask two questions:
- “Substantial Basis” (Gates) applied to magistrate/judge: Did the issuing magistrate have a “substantial basis” for concluding there was probable case – did the totality of circumstances (including veracity/validity) indicate probable cause?
- “Objective Good Faith” (Leon) applied to officers: If NOT, the reviewing judge must then ask whether the officers acted with objective good faith.
- Division of responsibility: Leon (good faith exception to the ER) divides the responsibility between the magistrate-judge and officer: “It is the magistrate’s responsibility to determine whether the officer’s allegations establish PC and, if so, to issue a warrant comporting in form with the 4th Amend. In the ordinary course, an officer cannot be expected to question the magistrate’s probable cause determination or his judgement that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient.”
# Apart from those circumstances articulated in pg. 134/35 where the officer should have reason to know that there is no PC and the signed warrant is wrong, the officer can’t be required to second guess the magistrate’s decision. SEE Handout!
# If reviewing judge determines that that magistrate DID NOT have a substantial basis for concluding that PC existed, then the evidence is still not excluded of the officers acted in good faith.
# Franks v Delaware (p. 185)– Procedural Steps to Challenge Warrant:
- D makes a substantial preliminary showing that the statements in a search warrant affidavit were intentionally and knowingly false, or with reckless disregard to their truth, and
- if the allegedly false stmt was necessary to the finding of probable cause – a hearing will be held at the D’s request.
- If, at the hearing, the D can show by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the stmt was indeed false then the false stmt will be set aside and
- the affidavit’s remaining content will be analyzed to see if it est. probable cause.
- If it does not, then, and only then, will the fruits of the search be excluded.
# Search Warrants
- Issuance of Warrant:
# Need “neutral and detached” magistrate:
- Coolidge v. New Hampshire – must have a neutral and detached magistrate. Here the magistrate had the dual role of being the chief investigator and prosecutor.
- Shadwick v. Tampa – judicial clerks are neutral and can capably determine if probable cause exists.
- Connally v Georgiabi: Can’t have financial incentive to issue warrant
- Rooker v Commonwealth: Judge or magistrate must read the warrant before he/she signs it.
- United States v Davis: One magistrate can’t o.k. a warrant if another magistrate had previously rejected it on the same showing.
# “Particularity as to the place to be searched”:
# Common Practice: street address for urban locations; description for rural locations.
- State v. Blackburn: Apt # is wrong but the warrant did specify unique letters that appeared on the door – the court found that a warrant that specifically describes the writing on the door satisfies the “particularity” reqmt even where the door number is wrong.
- Maryland v. Garrison: search of D’s third floor apt., though not intended by warrant, was valid b/c the warrant authorized the search of the entire third floor of the building and b/c the officer’s failure to realize the overbreadth of the of the warrant was objectively reasonable.
- Overall Rule – “Particularity” reqmt is common sense analysis: the courts use a rule of reason to define what is “particularity.” Courts will uphold seizure even if there is an error if the warrant was enough to reasonably tell an officer what kind of area is to be searched and what is to be seized.
- Search of persons on the premises
- Ybarra v. Illinois (1979): Warrant to search bar and bartender, but cops also searched 13 customers. No reason to suspect D had drugs on him. Rule: A person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probably cause to search that person.
# Detention of the persons on the premises:
# Michigan v. Summers (1981)(p.198) –
- Rule: When the police are searching a residence for contraband, pursuant to a search warrant, they may detain the occupants while the search continues.
- Facts: Police detained D as they served a search warrant on the residence and he was on his way out. Arrested him after they found narcotics in his house. Then searched him and found heroin.
- Rationale: The court held that this was a limited intrusion (like Terry), detention served the purpose of avoiding flight and avoiding harm to officers, detainee can open locks and avoid damage to locked areas.
- Note: Officers may not look everywhere within the described premises; they may only look where the items described in the warrant might be concealed.
- Seizure of items not named in the search warrant:
- Horton v. CA (1990) – Can seize items plainly visible from a place where police are entitled to be
- Facts: Here an officer’s affidavit established PC to search D’s home for the proceeds of a robbery and for weapons used, but the magistrate issued a warrant only for the proceeds. No proceeds were found but weapons were.
- D claimed violation of the “in plain view” exception announced in Coolidge v. New Hampshire: items found in plain view may be seized where it is immediately apparent to police that they have evidence in front of them—the discovery of evidence in plain view must be inadvertent.
# Analysis: Court held that the scope of the search was not effected by the fact that the guns were not listed in the warrant (there may be a different result if the warrant described the jewelry, the officers found the jewelry, but then spent an additional two hours searching for weapons).
# RULE: The “plain view” doctrine applies even where the police’s discovery of a piece of evidence they want to seize, but not in the warrant, is NOT inadvertent. Thus, as in Horton, if the police know that they are likely to find both a gun used in the robbery as well as the proceeds of the robbery, they may validly find and seize the gun if they happen upon it in plain view.
# Significance: This case may suggest that the real bite of the “particularity” reqmt only extends to the place to be searched, not necessarily to the things to be seized.
Warrantless Arrests and Searches of the Person
- Warrantless Arrests O.K. - United States v. Watson:
- Rule: Arrest warrants are not constitutionally required. This is true even where the police have sufficient advance notice so that procurement of a warrant would not jeopardize the investigation.
- Facts: Watson was arrested without a warrant by a postal inspector under 18 USC § 3061 for distribution of phony credit cards.
- Majority opinion: Considerable deference must be shown to congressional statutes which construe the “reasonableness” of an arrest (w/o warrant). The CL and the states recognize that felony arrests w/o a warrant can be statutorily granted.
- Dissent: A warrant requirement will not unduly burden legitimate gov’t interest. There is little likelihood that a warrant for arrest, issued once PC is est., would grow stale by the time the arrest comes to fruition.
- The 4th amend. does not differentiate btwn an arrest and a search. However, this case seems to make a distinction. A lot of cases say that a search w/o a warrant is per se unreasonable, but an arrest w/o a warrant is not per se unreasonable – it is up to congressional/statutory mandate.
# Must have Probable Cause to detain post-arrest - Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) (p.211):
- If a suspect is arrested w/o a warrant ( but with officer’s determination of probable cause), the 4th Amend. requires a judicial determination of PC as a prerequisite to extended restraint on liberty following arrest –can’t detain a person for a long time w/o a warrant or hearing on pc after the initial arrest.
- Unlike the appellate court, SCt did not require a full formal adversary hearing, but rather an informal determination that PC exists to detain the suspect in custody: “Whatever procedure a State may adopt, it must provide a fair and reliable determination of pc as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint on liberty, and this determination must be make by a judicial officer before or ‘promptly’ after arrest.”
# What is “prompt determination of PC” in Gerstein? - County of Riverside v.McLaughlin –
- Rule – 48 Hours: The court held that a judicial determination of pc must be found within 48 hours of arrest. However, just b/c the determination happens within the 48 hours after arrest, does not mean that there was not unreasonable delay.
- Shift of BOP: The BOP rests with the arrestee to prove that there was unreasonable delay if the PC determination occurs within 48 hours. However, if the pc determination does not occur within the first 48 hours, the gov’t has the BOP to show that there was no unreasonable delay.
# Searches Incident to Arrest - United States v. Robinson:
# RULE: Warrantless Search of person incident to custodial arrest is reasonable
# Facts: Officer Jenks arrested D for traffic offense. Jenks informed D that he was under arrest and then began a weapons pat down. He found a hard object contained in a cigarette pack in D’s pocket. Jenks further searched the pack and found heroine caplets.
- Rehnquist majority: The authority to search the person incident to a custodial arrest, while based upon the need to disarm and discover evidence, does not depend on what a court will later decide is the probability that weapons or evidence will be found on the suspect due to the particular crime (here, driving w/out permit).
- Broad rule, not case-by-case: Any time a traffic or other arrest (even loitering) is made, cops allowed to search for weapons and evidence (full body search), as long as the arrest is “custodial” – i.e. as long as the arrestee will be taken down to the stationhouse for booking.
# Unnecessary Arrests
- Atwater (p. 221): Mom driving kids w/out seatbelts. Infraction for which only a fine was authorized. Cop arrested mom.
- Rule: You can take someone into custody. Whether a crime warrants time in jail depends on D’s prior record. Even tho facts of this case don’t merit an arrest, USSC wants a bright line rule.
# Use of Pretext to Make Stop O.K. - Whren v. U.S. (1996):
- Facts: D.C. officers pulled over a Pathfinder who had made a right turn, without signaling, and then sped off at an “unreasonable speed.” The Officer discovered that there were two bags of cocaine observed from viewing through the window. Officers made the arrest for narcotics. Officers were part of the vice squad and do not normally give traffic tickets, in fact they are only allowed to intervene in traffic activities which may be severely dangerous.
- Issue: Is it permissible to stop a person for a crime “X” when the real reason you made the stop was to search for violation of crime “Y”?
# Rule: As long as there is probable cause to stop vehicle, the stop is constitutional regardless of cops’ subjective motive.
- Significance: the police’s “real” reason for the stop is irrelevant – once the police have probable cause to believe that a minor traffic (or other) violation has occurred, they may stop the vehicle. If the stop gives them p.c. to believe that contraband is inside, they may perform a warrantless search.
- Can search Inventory incident to arrest - Illinois v. Lafayette (1983):
- Facts: Officers went thru and inventoried the contents of a D’s shoulder bag upon being arrested. They found amphetamines.
- Issue: Are the amphetamines admissible or are they excluded under 4th amend.?
- Holding: The court held that the inventory search of the bag is o.k. even where there exists a less intrusive alternative. The court reasoned that the inventory search protects against theft of D’s goods by officers and accusations by the arrestee, upon his release, that his stuff was taken.
# No Search Allowed Incident to Citation - Knowles v. Iowa: Knowles is stopped for speeding and issued a citation. But then the officer made a full search of the car and found marijuana. The court held that the search was unconstitutional b/c the justifications in Robinson do not exist here – there is no need to search for weapons where you are issuing a citation and not making a custodial arrest where danger of harm is more likely, and there is no need to gather further evidence of speeding through a search of the car.
- Warrantless Searches of Premises, Vehicles, and Containers
Searches of Premises
- “Within His Immediate Control” - Chimel v. CA (1969):
- Issue: What is the permissible scope of a search that is pursuant to an arrest?
- Facts: Here the officers had an arrest warrant for D for burglary and theft of coins. Officers then searched (incident to arrest) the entire house for the coins. No search warrant.
- Rule: A search incident to an arrest is constitutional where it extends to the person of the arrestee and the area “within his immediate control” – anywhere, within reach - the arrestee could reach to grab a weapon or stash evidence.
# New York v Belton – “Immediate Control” extended to passenger compartment and glove box and contents of containers found in that compartment: When everyone in vehicle arrested, cop can search the entire passenger compartment and contents therein– not just where the passenger or driver could reach to (this does include the glove compartment, but does NOT include the trunk or under the hood).
- but how can this be w/in “grab area” of D when D is outside with possible handcuffs?
- Case was search of vehicle incident to arrest. Search not pursuant to vehicle exception.
- Warrantless seizures of item in “Plain View” only legit when “immediately apparent” that item is evidence- AZ v. Hicks (1987): police must have PC to believe that the object is incriminating to search it.
- Facts: Officer lawfully entered premises after hearing a gun shot and when in the squalid apartment they see an expensive stereo equip. that didn’t fit in the apt. The officer then moved the stereo in order to get the serial number.
- Rule: The “plain view” doctrine does not apply b/c at the moment the officer picked up the stereo, he did not have probable cause for the search; only had a “suspicion” that the stereo may be stolen. Cop can only make a “truly cursory inspection- one that involved merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it.”
# Absent Exigent Circumstances, You MUST have a Warrant to enter a Home to conduct a Search
- Vale v. Louisiana (1970): Had arrest warrant. Arrested Vale on front steps. Searched home without warrant.
- A search may be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest. If a search of a house is to be upheld as incident to an arrest, that arrest must take place inside the house.
- Search was un-constitutional. Needed warrant.
- Illinois v. McArthur (2001): Protect evidence in trailer by not allowing D in trailer w/out accompaniment.
- Restriction was reasonable b/c wife said D had hidden marijuana under couch. In meantime, cops got search warrant.
- Payton v. NY (1980:) You must have a warrant to enter into a home in order to conduct a search or make an arrest, absent exigent circumstances.
- Exigent Circumstances may include “hot pursuit.” When the police are in pursuit of a suspect that they have p.c. to belief has committed the crime, and the suspect enters a house, the police can go in w/o a warrant. U.S. v. Santana. Here, however, there was a time lag between the offense and arrest. Exigent circumstances may also exist where the officers have reason to believe that evidence will be destroyed if they wait to get a warrant. U.S. v. Davis.
- Dissent: There are CL restrictions on a warrantless arrest:
- Confession stemming from Payton violation: A confession that follows a warrantless house arrest in violation of Payton will not be excluded.
Search of Automobiles and Containers
- Automobile Exception to Warrant Rqmt - Carrol v. U.S. (1925): exception b/c (1) cars are subject to mobility, and (2) the expectation of privacy with respect to one’s automobile is significantly less than that relating to one’s home or office” – this is b/c there are “pervasive schemes of regulation of automobiles.” When there is PC to search car, can search car without a warrant.
- U.S. v. Chadwick (1977) – Officers had PC for foot locker, but not car. As soon as the container was in the trunk of the car, the officers conducted the search. Rule: you must have a warrant to search the container.
- Ark v. Sanders (1979) – PC for container in a cab, cab drives off. Since no PC for the car, you must have a warrant to search the container.
- U.S. v. Ross (1982) – If you have pc to search the car then a container found in the car can also be searched w/o a warrant. The scope of the larger area (the car) encompasses the smaller (the container). Facts: Cops believed Ross selling drugs from car and kept drugs in trunk. OK for cops to open trunk and search a closed bag.
# Motor home in Public Parking Area w/in Auto Exception - California v Carney:
- a reduced expectation of privacy resulting from the pervasive regulation of vehicles traveling on the highways.
# When police have PC to believe that a container contains contraband, they may wait until the container is in the car, stop the car, and seize and open the container, all w/o a warrant - CA v Acevedo: (1991) (p.266):
# Issue: Does the 4th Amend. require the police to obtain a warrant to open the sack in a movable vehicle simply b/c they lack probable cause to search the entire car?
- Facts: D picked up a package the police had PC to believe contained marijuana and put it in his truck.
- Ct abandons Sanders and Chadwick, which mandate a higher expectation of privacy for luggage or containers in the car and requires either a search warrant to search some items or probable cause to search the entire car
- Rule: The police may search a container in a car w/o a warrant, if their search for the container is supported by PC. Cops can only search container b/c no PC to search trunk or passenger compartment.
- Note: Once cops find pot, they can arrest D. Then they can search passenger compartment incident to arrest.
# Wyoming v Houghton: (1999) (p. 273) – Routine traffic Stop. Belongings of passengers are subject to search even if PC exists only for driver.
- Rule: Court relies on Ross: If there is p.c. to search a vehicle, it is justified to search every part of the vehicle and its contents that may conceal the object of the search. Ross had been broadly applied to all containers in the car, regardless of the ownership. No individualized determination of probable cause required for each container.
- Balancing Test:
- Intrusion into privacy: Passengers have a reduced expectation of privacy with regard to property they transport in a vehicle – travel through public thoroughfares, subject to stops by police, exposed to traffic accidents.
- Gov’t Interest: Otherwise risk that the evidence of contraband will be destroyed or hidden. Passenger may be in a conspiracy with the driver and stow all the driver’s belongings in the passenger’s bag. Difficult to determine who owns which container.
- If car impounded, can do full inventory search
- By securing the prop., the police protect the property from unauth. interference, theft, and vandalism. They also protect themselves against wrongful accusations of the temptation of stealing the prop. Plus, they protect themselves physically in case there is a bomb or weapons or explosives aboard.
Investigative Stops: Stop and Frisk
- Terry v. Ohio: No p. cause nec to stop and frisk for weapons. Just need r. suspicion that D is armed and dangerous individual. Balancing test: nature and extent of government interest justifying intrusion vs. privacy interest of citizen.
- Officer observed suspicious behavior exhibited by two men on a street corner and wanted to investigate. The issue turned not on whether the investigation was proper but whether there was a justification for officer’s invasions of D’s privacy by searching him in the course of the investigation.
- D argued that officer is never justified in making the search—officer must wait until there is PC for arrest. Ct rejects this primarily on officer’s safety grounds.
- Officer need not be certain individual is armed—issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. In justifying the intrusion, officer must be able to “point to specific and articulatable facts which, taken together with rational inferences…reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Facts are judged by an objective standard.
# Seizure began when cop laid hands on D, exercised dominion over D. Seizure must be reasonable at inception and in scope.
- officer did have specific facts that D was armed. Reasonable, individualized suspicion
- frisk was limited to search for weapons
- what is a seizure?
- Florida v. Bostick: consent searches are valid. Test: taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, would reasonable person feel free to leave? [reasonable innocent person test]
- Was there a seizure? Was it reasonable/justified? Was search product of illegal seizure? If consent to search, was it freely given?
- Hold: No seizure. Cop interaction w/ D on bus. Cop asked to see his ticket, announced they were randomly checking for drugs. Cop asked to search bag and D said yes.
- Dissent: D was clearly not “free to say decline consent”. Several factors: intimidating show of force (weapons bulging from all angles) by the police and the fact that D has no reason to know that police can’t hold his refusal to cooperate against him. Also, D can’t get off the bus—confrontation by police in unfamiliar territory only “aggravates the coercive quality of the encounter”.
- Weiselburg strongly agrees with dissent. Looks at the factual situation in this case: where were the officers standing, what were they wearing? Were they armed? Etc.
- Drayton: 4th Amend does not require officers to tell suspect they have right to refuse consent.
# California v. Hodari D.: D sees police and flees, is pursued on foot by officer and throws a crack rock as he runs away. Ct holds that the officer did not “seize” D w/o reasonable suspicion because there was no seizure by him yelling “stop”. ER does not apply.
- although officer did make a “show of force” (chasing/yelling stop) D did not submit or yield to this show of force. (throwing crack doesn’t count).
- Rule: Seizure is either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority.
- Policy issue: unlawful orders to “stop” will not be deterred by applying the ER to the orders that are ignored.
- Dissent: consequences of maj. holding is that it will encourage unlawful displays of force that will frighten innocent citizens into surrendering their privacy rights. (remember: here there was no PC or reasonable suspicion!)
# Summary of Tests: A seizure does not happen until:
- suspect submits to police authority
- a reasonable person in the suspects position would believe he was not free to leave
- stop and frisk is seizure
Grounds for Temporary Seizure for Investigation
- What is reasonable suspicion?
- Officer saw D talking to 9-12 different people he knew to be addicts. Officer didn’t overhear any of the conversations to see anything pass between them. Officer approached D and said “you know what I am after” and D stuck hand into coat as officer simultaneously grabbed into coat and retrieved heroin.
- Ct held there was a lack of grounds for the frisk and that it was made in an improper manner. There were not even grounds for a stop—“for all he knew, they could have been talking about the World Series”
- Florida v. J.L: Anonymous tip D at bus stop had gun. Cops did not see D do anything suspicious. Cops frisked D and found gun
- Anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity.
- Different if tip is that person has bomb and there is greater threat to public safety.
# United States v. Sokolow: Fitting drug courier profile amounts to reasonable suspicion.
- Ok for officers to rely on info provided by airport
- Does not require case-by-case analysis
# Illinois v. Wardlow: Flight alone is not reasonable suspicion (but can be a factor).
- Unmarked police car was cruising in high crime neighborhood, saw D standing at curb and when he saw the officers, he fled. Police pursued, did a Terry pat-down and found a gun—that search was challenged as unreasonable under the 4th.
- Here stop occurred in a high crime area. Other factors to consider: time of day, number of people in area, character of neighborhood, whether officer was in uniform, was the runner was dressed, the direction and speed of flight, and any unusual behavior
- when does seizure end?
- Officer on drug interdiction patrol stopped D for speeding, checked record and found nothing. Asked D if there were any drugs in the car, D said no. Cops asked to search the vehicle and D consented.
- Dissent argues that officers failure to tell D he was free to leave means that a reasonable person would not feel they were free—seizure had not yet ended at the time consent was obtained and seizure by that time was illegal b/c it had exceeded its lawful purpose and thus ER should apply. Dissent also considered that this tactic was used to make 786 consent searches in one year.
# Scope of protective search?
- Diff than Robinson: there search was incident to arrest, so full search was allowed.
- Intro Remarks
# When is warrantless search appropriate?
- Generally reasonable when:
- Individualized or reasonable suspicion (Terry) that is less compelling than is needed for the usual arrest or search; or
- some neutral criteria employed which guards against arbitrary selection of those subjected to the procedure.
- Camara v. Municipal Court: if occupant did not consent to inspection, the officer would ordinarily have to get a warrant. No p. cause necessary b/c there are reasonable legislative or administrative standards for conducting an area health inspection.
- Ct has upheld warrantless business inspections by emphasizing the closely regulated nature of the business and that the scope of the inspection is closely regulated by time and place.
- Burger: upheld warrantless inspection of junkyard for stolen property. Less expectation of privacy when industry is closely regulated.
- Clifford: Fireman can enter burning building and investigate the cause of the fire. But later entries without consent require a warrant.
- Border Searches: US v. Ramsey upheld customs inspections of mail.
- Rule: Border searches considered reasonable by the single fact that the person or item had entered into our country from outside. No individualized suspicion needed.
- Non-Routine searches: real suspicion is needed for a strip search and “clear indication” is needed for a body cavity search. In US v. Montoya de Hernandez, Ct held that where customs agents “reasonably suspect that D is carrying drugs “internally”, she may be detained as long as necessary to verify or dispel suspicion. But quantum of proof is still less than probable cause.
- Vehicle Checkpoints
# Almeida-Sanchez: Roving border patrols need PC to search. But only Terry-type r. suspicion necessary to inquire about resident status.
- Martinez-Fuerte: For permanent checkpoint away from border, still need PC to search car but brief questioning w/out r. suspicion is OK.
- Prouse: can’t randomly stop drivers to check driver’s license and registration without reasonable suspicion.
- Michigan Dept of State Police v. Sitz: upheld sobriety checkpoint program b/c intrusion is slight, program sufficiently limited officer’s discretion, program addressed serious problem, and checkpoint system was a reasonable alternative for dealing w/ problem.
- Student Searches, Drug Testing
- No warrant req’d. Just need reasonable grounds for suspecting search will turn up evidence.
- Veronia v. Acton: randomly test student athletes. Students voluntarily participate in athletics. Invasive aspect kept to a minimum. School found there was an increase in drug use.
- Earls: students in any extra-curricular activity can be drug tested.
- Nat’l Treasury Employees v. Von Raab: upheld suspicionless testing of customs workers who were on the front line of drug interdiction. Privacy interest outweighed by the compelling interest of the government.
- Skinner v. Railway Labor: upheld blood and urine testing of railway worker following accidents or safety violations. Again the special interest of the government outweighed the privacy interest. Testing was in part a response to a national safety problem on the railways.
Special Needs v. Ordinary Law Enforcement
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte: Consent must be voluntary.
# Rule: Whether consent is voluntary is determined by totality of the circumstances. D does not have to know he has right to refuse consent.
- Voluntariness is determined looking at two competing concerns
- the legitimate need for searches
- assuring the absence of coercion
- 9th circuit here held that State must affirmatively prove that D knew he had a right to refuse consent to a search—Ct says that as a practical matter it would be impossible to use a rule like this, too hard to prove.
- “impractical” to impose a warning requirement, consent searches are a standard investigatory technique, not a formal or custodial situation akin to Miranda
- D argues that consent is a waiver of the right to refuse under 4th and 14th A’s and thus under Johnson v. Zerbst doctrine, state must demonstrate an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right of privilege. Court rejects the application of the Zerbst waiver standard.
- Dissent: consent is only a meaningful choice if D knew he could refuse. Police are capitalizing on the ignorance of citizens to accomplish by subterfuge what they could not achieve by relying on the knowing relinquishment of constitutional rights.
- Illinois v. Rodriguez [third party consent]: When officers obtain consent be a third-party to enter and search premises, they must only reasonably believe that person has the authority to consent.
- warrantless search of an apartment, girlfriend consents to the search, unclear if she really lives there or not. Officers find coke in apartment.
- Determination of consent to enter is based on an objective standard: would the facts available to the officer at the moment warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that consenting party had authority over the premises. (note lack of bright line rule!)
- Dissent: since third-party consent searches are not based on exigent circumstances, no social goal is served by allowing ones made by an erroneous belief by officer.
- ChuckyW: This issue reminds us of what the purpose of the ER is: deter bad cop behavior. A rule which keeps evidence out despite good faith efforts of cops is not useful in meeting this goal.
- Miscellaneous Notes on Who May Consent:
- Husband/Wife: there is a presumption that a spouse has the authority to consent to a search of all areas of the home—other spouse can rebut this presumption. (query—what is the effect of this standard on Rodriguez?)
- Parent/Child: parent can consent to search of kids room if the kid is not an adult, child can’t give consent to search home.
- Landlord/Joint Tenant: LL may not consent to search of T’s premises. Hotel employees can’t consent to search of guest’s room. Where two people to more live together-either can consent to search of whole are, regardless whether there are separate bedrooms.
- Employer/Employee: depends on how much control employee exerts over the area being searched—how private it is.
- Due Process/ Voluntariness and Right to Counsel
# Historical: Before Miranda and 5th Amen cases, USSC held that confessions must be voluntary under DP clause. Three primary interests protected by the Due Process “voluntariness” test for admitting confessions
- Reliability- Barred use of confessions which were unreliable because of the police methods used to obtain them
- Police Conduct- Barred use of confessions produced by offensive methods even though reliability was not an issue
- Involuntary in fact- Barred used of confession which were involuntary in fact (obtained from a drugged person) even though they were reliable and there was n police misconduct
- Note: primary rationale for barring confession that are not given voluntarily is that they are unreliable! The confession rule was designed merely to protect integrity of fact-finding process. Initially, the court merely looked at voluntariness. In the Warren heyday, however, the court started looking at police conduct as a guide for exclusion.
- The Shortcoming of the Voluntariness Test
- It is an ambiguous term and a mix of factual and legal elements, invites judges to give their own weight to different facts. Police have a hard time knowing where the lines are when Ct looks at totality of the circumstances.
- It is hard to prove psychological or mental coercion
# Right to Counsel and the Analogy to the Accusatorial, Adversarial Trial: in early pre-Massaih and Gideon cases, USSC upheld convictions
- said no DP violation even when D requested counsel and was refused
- concurrences and dissents point out that DP requires that the accused who wants counsel should have one at any time after the arrest
- Spano (1959): once a person was formally charged by indictment or information his constitutional right to counsel had begun, at least with counsel he had retained himself. Court found confession inadmissible on coerced confession grounds (not right to counsel).
# Massiah v. United States: 6th A right to counsel violated- D’s statements could not be used against him at trial
- After being released on bail, D (who already had been indicted and had a lawyer) went with his co-D into a car. Co-D wore a wire and police obtained several incriminating statements from D.
- Hold: Denied right to counsel when agents deliberately elicited incriminating stmts from him after he had been indicted and in absence of his counsel
- Dissent: unable to see how this case presents an unconstitutional interference with the right to counsel. The statements were voluntary under DP test.
- Escobedo v. Illinois (1964): 6th Amend violated when investigation focuses on a particular suspect who is taken into custody, and D requests his lawyer during interrogation and is denied the lawyer. All incriminating statements are excluded.
# D’s interrogation was done before any judicial or adversary proceedings were made. D was taken to station house and he asked repeatedly to see his lawyer. Lawyer came and asked repeatedly to see D. Instead Police interrogated D and D made incriminating statements.
- Factors: investigation no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has focused on D, D taken into custody, police interrogate to elicit incriminating stmts, D has requested and been denied opportunity to consult with lawyer, and police have not warned him of right to remain silent
- 6th amend applies to states via 14th (Gideon)
- 5th Amend: No person will be compelled to be a witness against himself
- Miranda applies when
- Waiver must be made “voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Silence (failure to ask for lawyer) is not a waiver.
- Can invoke rights at any time: thus even if the suspect first indicates that he is waiving these rights, he can stop answering questions at any time or request an atty at any time and the questioning must then cease.
- Right to Counsel
- Right applies only when questioning occurs
- Police don’t have to give warning that atty will be provided if the are sure that the suspect has one or can afford one, but the court urges them to do so anyhow.,
- Right to counsel is a rt to have the lawyer present not just a consultation.
- Inadmissibility – A stmt obtained in violation of the Miranda rules will be inadmissible as prosecution evidence, regardless of whether other factors indicate that the statement would meet DP “voluntariness” test.
- Leg. Substitute: majority states that the M warnings must be given “unless other fully effective means are devised to inform the accused of their right to silence and to assure a continued opportunity to exercise it.” Does this mean that Miranda warnings are merely “prophylactic?” Think Dickerson.
- In Miranda the court located the rt to counsel in a 5th amend. context – rt. against self-incrimination. SO while the rt to counsel is within the 6th amend. the court effectively absorbs this rt into the 5th amend.
III. Implications and Interpretations of Miranda
- Impeachment exception
- Michigan v. Tucker (1974): Miranda warnings are procedural safeguards not Constitutionally req’d. Warnings protect right against compulsory self-incrimination.
# Miranda rts are not themselves constitutional rts. which cannot be violated – Miranda is merely prophylactic in protecting const. Rts
- Here the officers disregarded Miranda but Ct holds that it was inadvertent and the procedural rules of Miranda should not have a consequence here. It is only a practical safeguard that was not needed here.
- New York v. Quarles: recognized the public safety exception to Miranda. The “need for answers to Q’s in a situation that poses a threat to the public outweighs need for a prophylactic rule.”
- Ct here also seems to crumble the Miranda-established irrebutable presumption of coercion in the absence of Miranda warnings. Instead focus on whether there really were any coercive or improper tactics by police.
# OR v. Elstad (1985): The fact that the police had earlier obtained a stmt from D in violation of M when questioned in his home did not bar the admissibility of subsequent stmts obtained at police station when, this time, the police complied with Miranda.
# Dickerson: (2000)
- But violation of M is not a per se Constitutional 5th Amend violation. If it was, Miranda violation and compulsion violation would be the same on the chart below.
|Violation||Statement can’t be used in||Impeachment Use?||Fruits may be used?|
|5th A- Miranda||Case-in-chief||Yes||Yes|
|5th A- Compulsion||Case-in-chief or any other part of case||No||No|
|5th & 14th A DP/Voluntariness||Same as above||No||No|
Custody, Warnings, and Interrogation
- Adequacy of Warning: Duckworth v. Eagen (1989):
- Spring (1987): Police did not tell D he was murder suspect. So was waiver knowing and voluntary?
- Rule: Suspect does not need to be aware of all possible subjects of questioning. Ct said police did not trick or deceive D.
# Meaning of Custody
# Beckwith (1976) rejects Escobedo’s “focus of investigation” test. Private interview in home did not equal custody despite fact that D was the “focus” of the investigation
- Objective test: Would r. suspect believe he was in custody? “Officer’s unarticulated suspicions through out interview do not effect the objective circumstances and thus don’t affect the assessment of whether the person is in custody.” (Stansbury v. California)
# Basic on the street Q-ing is not custodial (as long as D is free to leave). So if D questioned in public park, DP voluntariness test applies.
- D voluntarily went to the stationhouse. Not custody. (Oregon v. Mathiason)
- Even if D goes to the stationhouse accompanied by an officer, if he goes there voluntarily and is specifically told he is not under arrest, no Miranda warnings necessary. (California v. Beheler)
# Roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not amount to custodial interrogation. (Berkemer v. McCarty) Detention is only temporary/brief and in the public eye which reduced ability of officers to use illegitimate means of coercion.
# Meaning of Interrogation: Rhode Island v. Innis: Direct questioning or its functional equivalent.
- D was arrested for murder with shotgun, Given M warnings twice, D asks for lawyer. While in patrol car, officers talk to each other about how they hope the gun is found because there is a school for handicapped children nearby. D says to go back—he will show where the gun is.
- No express questions to D. But was conversation reasonably likely to elicit response from D?
- Test: definition of interrogation extends to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have know were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Here Ct finds no interrogation b/c officer should not have known that his stmts were likely to elicit a response.
- Concur calls it a “calculated appeal”—classic technique to appeal to D to confess for the sake of others or to display some evidence of honor and decency.
# Arizona v. Mauro: Not custodial interrogation to put two suspects together (husband and wife) in the same interrogation room to let them talk when recorder is in plain view.
- It was the wife’s idea—she demanded to talk to him. To find interrogation here would thwart the deterrent rationale of Miranda—the government officers did not recommend or suggest any actions here.
- Definitely custody b/c took place in interrogation room. But the questioning was not coercive in any way.
# Jail House Plant-Surreptitious Interrogation: Illinois v. Perkins: Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement.
- Here a secret government agent was planted in jail with suspect and induced him to talk. Coercion is determined from the point of the suspect.
- This not a 6th A violation under Massiah b/c 6th A is offense specific. Here suspect was being approached on an unrelated charge that the one he was in jail for.
- Dissent: Miranda was not only concerned with police coercion—it dealt with any police tactics that may operate to compel a suspect in custody to make incriminating statements.
- Booking Exception: Pennsylvania v. Muniz: Questions asked for the purpose of booking a suspect are not “interrogation” under Miranda.
- D is booked for DUI, asked Q’s and answers were recorded. Not Mirandized.
- Court holds that statements are admissible (evidence of slurring) b/c slurring is not a testimonial response to the interrogation. Standard booking questions are OK b/c they do not require thinking.
- 6th birthday Q, however, is excluded because the response itself (correct or not) is incriminating as opposed to just the manner of the answer.
# Public Safety Exception (again) New York v. Quarles: Miranda warnings are unnecessary prior to Questioning that is “reasonably prompted by a concern for public safety.” Need to find weapon.
- D was chased into a grocery store (public place) and caught. Cops asks, “Where’s the gun” w/o giving Miranda. Statement is admitted under this exception.
- Objective standard: Availability of exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officer-- whether a reasonable officer would conclude a threat to public safety.
- Govt bears burden of proving safety exception. Actual coercion may still be shown—the exception is not automatic admittance
- Ct applies a cost benefit analysis to the case—warnings are prophylactic in nature, thus court can weigh the cost of the right protected against the value of public safety.
- Consequences of Quarles (CW): (1) reinforced ides that Miranda warning was not entrenched in the 5th A; (2) cost-benefit analysis represents a wholly different view of 5th A then that represented in Miranda; (3) vague and ill-defined exception to the warning req. reduced efficacy of Miranda’s bright line rules. [notice, however: the Ct has not approved any other exception in the next 14 years.]
- O’Connor: would allow weapon to be evidence, but not D’s statement. Nothing in M requires exclusion of non-testimonial evidence.
- Invocation, Reinterrogation and Counsel
- Ct says that lawyer plays unique role in system— request for probation officer is not the same as request for lawyer.
- Instead, D’s waiver must be assessed on the “totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” (e.g. age, experience, background and intelligence.
- Dissent: For a minor, a probation officer is like a lawyer
B. Reinterrogation after suspect asserts his rights:
- D arrested for a robbery. Invoked 5th Amend right to remain silent, and all questioning ceased. After two hours, D was brought out of cell to be questioned about an unrelated murder. Re-mirandized and waived rights. D made incriminating statement.
- Hold: No violation b/c there was a significant amount of time btwn interrogations, questioning was restricted to another offense, D was given M warnings again and D waived rights.
- CW issues: does this amount to wearing a person down? What if D is arrested for 5 robberies and is Qed about one and then the next, etc? what if there was some signature about the robbery that makes it easy to link D to it—he admits to one and you’ve got him for all.
- Edwards v. Arizona: Once a suspect invokes 5th Amend right to lawyer, all questioning must cease until he either gets a lawyer or he himself initiated contact with police.
- Here D asked for atty and questions stopped. Cops came back the next day and questioned him more about the same offense.
- If police continue questioning and D responds to the questions, this does not constitute a waiver.
# Arizona v. Roberson: Request for counsel is more potent that the request for silence in Mosley. Assertion to right to counsel means that D can’t be questioned on any offence, even a different one.
- But, A Calif Supreme Ct Case, People v. Storm, held: Edwards does not apply when D is released from custody after requesting attorney. Here cops then went to D’s house and D made statement.
- CW: When should invocation end? It wouldn’t last 20 years.
# Minnick v. Mississippi: (expands Edwards) After counsel is requested, police may not question a suspect without the lawyer present. It is not enough to afford D a lawyer, officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel.
- Even though D given opportunity to consult w/ counsel, police cannot talk to D again unless attorney is present.
- Counsel may have been ineffective because the exchange could have been hurried or brief. Lawyer may not have had the opportunity to discuss the range of issues that are important.
- Dissent: rule represents an irrebuttable presumption that all confession should be excluded---this will make it impossible for police to ever get a voluntary confession after D invokes right to counsel.
# Davis v. United States: ambiguous reference to a lawyer (“maybe I should talk to a lawyer”) is not enough to trigger Edwards.
- Whether or not D actually invoked right to counsel is an objective inquiry: must be a statement that reasonably construed to be an expression of desire for assistance of attorney. If statement fails to meet requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require police to stop questioning.
- Concurrence: timid and verbally inept suspect is not protected here—there should be a duty to clarify D’s statements that seem like they may be invoking right to counsel.
- Majority says no duty to clarify an ambiguous “invocation.” W/o clarification, does D actually feel like he has the right to invoke? Case is about risk of error—who bear the burden to clarify the mistake?
- Hot topic in the law: implied waivers where D knew his rights and then talked, making it implicit that D knowingly waived. This is a developing area and statements of such have been admitted by the CA SCt.
- Remember the standard for intentional waiver of a known right: Johnson v. Zerbst: knowingly and intelligently relinquished the right—high standard of proof.
# Michigan v. Jackson: D requested counsel at arraignment. Before counsel was obtained for them, police obtained waivers and questioned them. Ct holds waivers invalid. Rule: Requesting counsel during arraignment prevents cops from getting M waiver later in order to interrogate for the same crime.
# McNeil v. Jackson: 6th A right is offense specific and one who invokes 6th A right at a formal legal proceeding has less protection than one who asserts her Miranda-Edwards right at custodial interrogation.
- Suspect’s assertion to 6th A right to counsel does not serve as an invocation of the 5th A Miranda-Edwards right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation on a different offense.
- D’s public defender is not necessarily representing him on other offenses.
- Moran v. Burbine: Only D can invoke Miranda.
- D is in custody, police are told that D has a lawyer, question him anyway after getting a series of written waivers from him and get a confession.
- D argues that confession must be suppressed because by with-holding information that lawyer was trying to reach him, police deprived him of information essential for D to make knowing waiver of right. Two inquiries:
- is waiver a free deliberate choice and not the result of coercion AND
- does D have an awareness of right and of the consequences of abandoning that right.
- Police culpability not an issue ct finds that events occurring outside the presence of D and unknown to him can have no effect on his ability to relinquish a constitutional right. Court overrules Escobedo.
- Rule: No duty for police to tell D that his sister retained a lawyer for him. D’s waiver is valid, his pre-arraignment confession is allowed as evidence.
|Right Invoked||Reinterrogate on Same Crime?|| Reinterrogate on Diff Crime?
|Miranda- 5th A Silence||Courts split||Yes- Mosley|
|Miranda- 5th A Counsel||No||No- Roberson|
|6th A Right to Counsel||No-Jackson||Yes- McNeil|
- Estelle v. Smith: 5th and 6th A’s are violated when a psychiatrist uses information gathered to determine if D is competent to stand trial to later testify as to D’s future dangerousness at the sentencing phase.
- D was not given Miranda warnings, nor was permission from counsel obtained.
- Violation of both 5th and 6th A’s
- Allen v. Illinois: It is not necessary to give Miranda warning to those who are interviewed in determining whether they are a sexually dangerous person for commitment.
- Here court totally relies on the “civil” nature of the proceeding. Ct find this to be determinative even though the implications of the hearing look, smell and feel like a criminal conviction and subsequent incarceration.
- Rule: Miranda protections only apply in criminal proceedings
# Comparing Miranda w/ Prohibition against Use of Involuntary Statements and the 4th A ER: Withrow v. Williams: After a person has had a trial and appeal at the state level, can Miranda claims be adjudicated in federal habeas corpus?
- Federal habeas is usually limited to violations of federal constitutional rights. So the ? is: is Miranda a Constitutional rule?
- Surprise: Since D can claim his conviction violates DP in fed court, Court will allow him to make M claim too
- In Stone v. Powell: 4th A claims can’t be raised on federal habeas appeal. Since the 4th A violation is complete at the time of the search, applying the ER to habeus would have no deterrent effect. USSC declines to extend Stone to habeus setting.
- Miranda protects a trial right—guards against the use of unreliable stmts at trial. If D’s stmts at the stationhouse are admitted, D would be compelled to take the stand to disavow statements.
E. Impact of Miranda in Practice and Techniques
- Scholhofer maintains that the drop is not that big and can be attributed to other factors.
- These studies may help form the basis of opinion in Dickerson.
- It is negatively effecting police, why aren’t they more vocally upset about it?
Due Process, Voluntariness and Right to Counsel REVISITED# Why Voluntariness Test Still Matters: While Miranda displaced the voluntariness-due process-totality of the circumstance test, in a number of important situations, the primary criterion of confession admissibility is still the old test.
- Admissibility of statements given after a valid waiver of Miranda rights is still made on the basis of the voluntary test.
- What kind of police trickery or coercion is OK after Miranda rights have been waived—does waiver open D up to the whole gamut of coercive techniques?
# Miller v. Fenton: Court finds that a confession is voluntary despite officer’s gross display of sympathy and blatant appeal to conscience.
- Tactics: police said whoever committed murder is not a criminal, but needs psychiatric help, giving vague promises of help and leniency. Ct found that while psychological plays may play a part in the suspect’s decision to confess, so long as the decision is a product of the suspect’s own balancing of competing considerations, it is OK.
- Court looked at totality of the circumstances and found that, despite fact that the interrogation was 1 hour and that D collapsed into a state of shock after confessing, all was voluntary.
- Ct considered age, intelligence, past criminal history etc in determining the voluntariness.
- Note: Where there is an express promise of leniency the courts are more likely to find involuntariness.
- Compare: Arizona v. Fulminante: Where there is an explicit promise to protect D if he talks, court finds coercion and holds statement to be involuntary.
- paid FBI informant offers to protect D in prison. D confessed.
- Hold: There was a credible threat of violence and thus D’s will was overborne is such a way as to render his confession the product of coercion.
- Rule: Harmless error rule applies when stmt is involuntary.
# Colorado v. Connelly: coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is not voluntary w/in the meaning of DP; absent police conduct causally related to the confession, there is simply no basis for concluding that any state action had deprived D of due process of the law.
- Mentally ill man approaches cop voluntarily and says voice of God told him to confess.
- Issue: Is confession product of his own free will?
- Shift in the way that that Court thinks about voluntariness: Old school concerns focus on reliability. New school looks at police conduct and whether there was actual coercion.
- Suppressing the statements here would serve no purpose in enforcing constitutional guarantees.
- Note: The DP clause of 5th Amend applies to federal govt.
# Brewer v. Williams (Williams I, 1977): Exclude statements made in response to the “Christian Burial Speech” based on violation of 6th A right to counsel.
- D had a meeting with counsel, he was instructed not to talk. Police knew he was getting mental health treatment, called him “reverend” and gave a while spiel about burying the girl.
- D had been arraigned already. So judicial proceedings began. Judicial proceedings= formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, info, arraignment (Kirby). D had also retained a lawyer, who had made it clear that no interrogation was to occur during the trip from Des Moines to Davenport.
- Rule: Cops can’t deliberately elicit information from D after adversary proceedings have commenced.
- This is only a 6th A case because at this time Miranda was still new. Today Edwards would apply.
- Remember to examine all basis of exclusions: Brewer came before Innis (gun will hurt kids if we don’t find it). This case is easier than Innis because here the police are talking directly to the suspect. Williams was in custody. But whether he was interrogated w/in meaning of Miranda is not an issue b/c case decided on 6th A grounds only.
- D can waive 6th A right. But cop would have to ask, “Are you now waiving your right to an attorney?”
# Waiver of 6th Amend right: Patterson v. Illinois
- Miranda warnings sufficiently appraise D of his right to an attorney and the consequences of waiving that right therefore, his waiver of 5th A Miranda rights is equal to a knowing and intelligent waiver of 6th A right.
- Court says that neither right is “superior” and that 6th A is not more difficult to waive than 5th A.
- Footnote 9: Holding does not mean that all 6th A challenges to conduct would fail if the conduct passed under Miranda. Example: Court has permitted Miranda waiver to stand where a suspect was not told that his lawyer was trying to reach him during questioning. (Moran v. Burbine) In the 6th A context this would not be valid.
# Maine v. Moulton: Incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges, notwithstanding the fact that the police were also investigating other crimes, if, in obtaining evidence, the State violated the 6th A by knowingly circumventing the accused right to the assistance of counsel.
- This is a super confusing case. It is best analyzed in light of Massiah.
- Facts: co-D cooperates with police and puts a bug in the phone. (both those two were charged in a car parts ring criminal conspiracy.) Co-D tries to get info about D’s plan to kill off a Witness. D makes incriminating statements that make it easier for him to be prosecuted for the car parts crime he was already indicted for. Ct holds that the statements can’t be used in the car parts trial but can be used if there is a killing-a-W trial.
# US v. Henry: (1980) Plant did not question D about the crime, but he “was not a passive listener; rather he had some conversations w/ D while he was in jail and D’s incriminating statements were the product of this conversation.”
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson: (1986) Jailhouse informant’s report of D’s unsolicited incriminating statements about the crime did not violate 6th A.
- Facts: Without any prompting, D told plant the same story he had told the police. Plant advised D that his story “didn’t sound too good.”
- Plant “at not time asked any questions of D concerning the pending charges, and he only listened to D’s spontaneous and unsolicited statements.”
- Case illustrates the line between active and passive agents—between “stimulating” conversations with the D in order to “elicit” incriminating statements and taking no action beyond listening.
- Hypo: Could state put microphone in jail cell? Certainly a passive listener. Would this violate 6th Amend?
- Hypo: Assume D had asked for counsel. Why no Miranda violation? B/c plant is not an officer. (Perkins).
- TX v. Cobb (2001):
- D indicted for burglary and counsel was appointed. While in custody, D waived M and confessed to murders of woman and child who lived in house he robbed. Both of the crimes are factually related.
- Rule: But 6th A is offense specific. “Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statues, the test to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger.
SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULES
I. Standing to Object
- As a general rule, the defendant may assert the exclusionary rule only to bar evidence obtained through violation of his own constitutional rights. Thus, lower courts had developed the doctrine that a defendant lacked “standing” to challenge the evidence seized in violation of a third party’s constitutional rights. This rule was “based on the theory that the evidence is excluded to provide a remedy for a wrong done to the defendant, and that accordingly, if the defendant has not been wronged, he is entitled to no remedy.”
- === People v. Martin (1955) California Approach=No standing requirement: CA S.Ct. struck down standing requirement because it “virtually invites law enforcement officers to violate the rights of third parties and to trade the escape of a criminal whose rights are violated for the conviction of others by the use of the evidence illegally obtained against them.” ===
- Alderman v. United States (1969) USSC=Standing required: “suppression of the product of a Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of damaging evidence.”
- Rationale: Court felt that “additional benefits of extending the exclusionary rule to other defendants would not justify further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting criminals.”
# Use of the Federal Courts’ “Supervisory Power” to Overcome the Standing Requirement”
- U.S. v. Payner (1980): “The supervisory power does not authorize a federal court to suppress otherwise admissible evidence on the ground that it was seized unlawfully from a third party not before the court.”
- Facts: IRS agent illegaly seized briefcase belonging to officer of Bahamas bank and copied 400 documents. One of these docs led to prosecution of D, a customer of the bank. Since D had no privacy interest in the briefcase or the documents in it, he was not entitled as a constitutional matter to have the evidence suppressed.
- Rationale: Again, the court noted that “the interest in deterring illegal searches does not justify the exclusion of tainted evidence at the instance of a party who was not a victim of the challenged practices.”
# Automatic Standing
- Basic Problem: Occurs when D is charged with a crime where possession of an item is an essential element. (Possession of narcotics or stolen goods). In these cases D is in a dilemma if he wishes both to assert that he never had possession, and at the same time to contend that his possession of the item entitled him to object to its illegal seizure. If he denies possession, he may lose his ability to show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the item’s seizure, but if he admits that he had possession, he will have conceded an essential element of the prosecution’s case.
# Jones v. U.S. (1960): lower court denied standing b/c D failed to assert a possessory interest in the apt searched or the drugs found. But such an assertion would force D to allege facts that would tend to convict him. The USSC therefore concluded that D had “automatic standing” to allege the unconstitutionality of the seizure, since possession of the items seized was an essential element of the offense charged.
# Simmons v. U.S (1968): established a general rule that testimony by the defendant at a suppression hearing cannot be used against him at trial.
- US v. Salvucci (1980): abolished Jones “automatic standing” rule and held that Ds charged with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the ER rule if their OWN 4th A rights have been violated.
- Residential Premises:
- Rule: One with a present possessory interest in the premises searched, e.g., a member of the family regularly residing in a home, may challenge that search even though not present when the search was conducted.
- Business Premises:
- Mancusi v. DeForte (1968): Crucial issue is “whether the area was one in which there was a reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.”
=== The Current Approach ===
- Rakas v. Illinois (1978): Standing depends on whether the police action sought to be challenged is a search (i.e., a violation of legitimate expectations of privacy) with respect to the person challenging the intrusion.
- Facts: Police stopped a car in which Ds were riding as passengers, suspecting that the vehicle might have been the getaway car in a recent robbery. Police searched the interior of the car and found a rifle under the front passenger seat and a box of rifle shells in the locked glove compartment. The court held that Passenger-Ds did not have legitimate expectations of privacy; neither the glove compartment nor the area under the car sear are areas in which a passenger would normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy.
- Neither passenger asserted ownership in the items taken from the car. The Court seemed to imply that if the passengers had done so, they could have challenged the police conduct.
- “Standing” is not an issues separate from regular 4th Amend analysis.
# Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) one CANNOT challenge a search of an area (in this case another person’s purse) simply because he claimed ownership of the property seized during the search.
- Facts: D and Ms. Cox visiting house of Marquess. Police arrived with a arrest warrant for Marquess on drug charges. While there, they conducted search of D and several other visitors, including Cox. D claimed ownership of drugs found in Ms. Cox’s purse.
- Rationale: D couldn’t challenge the search b/c none of his rights were violated by it. The question was whether D had a legitimate expectation of privacy right Cox’s purse and its contents. Because D (1) had apparently stuffed the drugs in Cox’s purse only moments before the police arrived; (2) had no right to exclude others from looking through Cox’s purse; and (3) admitted that he had no subjective expectation that the purse would remain free from governmental intrusion, D had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the purse.
- CW says Ds detention was unlawful while police obtained search warrant for house. But Court said detention was in a “congenial atmosphere” and that D’s admissions were spontaneous reactions to the discovery of his drugs in the purse, and not the product of the initial illegality.
- General Rule: Where the person is a social guest at a private home, she generally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in that home. (Minnesota v. Olson). But where a person’s visit is solely for a business purpose, the Court is likely to find that the visitor had no such legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the premises, especially where the visit is a brief one. (Minnesota v. Carter).
- Minnesota v. Olson (1990): D’s status as an overnight guest showed that he had “an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Thus he had a sufficient interest in the home to challenge the legality of the warrantless entry there.
- Minnesota v. Carter (1998): Where a person visits a house only briefly, and does so for a purely business purpose, no legitimate expectation of privacy exists.
II. FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
A. The doctrine that illegally obtained evidence shall not be used for the purpose of gaining other evidence; once the original evidence, the “tree,” is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, all evidence stemming from it, the “fruit,” is equally unusable. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920)
B. Verbal evidence as the “fruit” of illegal search and seizure: Rule: Verbal evidence which derives so immediately from an unlawful entry and an unauthorized arrest is no less the fruit of official illegality than the more common tangible fruits of the unwarranted intrusion.
- Independent source v. Inevitable discovery
- Most frequently applied when the police misconduct occurred while an investigation was already in progress and resulted in the discovery of evidence that would have eventually been obtained through routine police investigatory procedure. The illegalities in such cases, therefore, had the effect of simply accelerating the discovery .
# Confession as the “fruit” of an illegal arrest.
- Facts: D was arrested without probable cause. At police station, D was given Miranda warnings, and interrogated. Within 2 hours of his arrest, D made an incriminating statement. Several hours after that, in a second interrogation (again prefaced by Miranda warnings), D made a second incriminating statement.
- Court decline to adopt per se rule that M warnings always purge the taint of an illegal arrest. Rather, Ct looks at totality of the circumstances.
- Hold: both confessions were the tainted fruit of the illegal arrest, and were therefore illegal. In this case, a statement made two hours later was NOT too attenuated.
- Rule: The Miranda warnings are an important factor, to be sure, in determining whether the confession is obtained by exploitation of the illegal arrest. But they are not the only factor to be considered. The temporal proximity of the arrest and the confession, the presence of intervening circumstances, and particularly, the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct are all relevant. The voluntariness of the stmt is a threshold requirement.
- Dunaway v. New York: Reaffirming the view that Miranda warnings, by themselves, are insufficient to attenuate the taint of an unconstitutional arrest.
- Stevens points out that the length factor is ambiguous. If there are no relevant intervening circumstances, a prolonged detention may well be a more serious exploitation of an illegal arrest than a short one. Conversely, even an immediate confession may have been motivated by a prearrest event such as a visit with a minister, and not police coercion.
# Taylor v. Alabama (1982): Extending Brown-Dunaway rule?
- Court held that petitioner’s confession was the impermissible fruit of his illegal arrest even though: (a) six hours had elapsed between the illegal arrest and the time petitioner confessed; (b) petitioner was advised of his rights three times; and (c) he was allowed to visit briefly with his girlfriend and his neighbor shortly before he confessed.
- Shows that while intervening factors MAY break the causal link between the unlawful arrest or search and the subsequent confession, the “break” in the link must be very substantial.
# Identification of a person as a “fruit” of an illegal arrest.
- U.S. v. Crews (1980): Where a suspect is illegally arrested, tried in court, and identified at trial by the victim, the defendant cannot claim that his physical appearance is the fruit of an unlawful arrest, thus barring the in-court identification.
- Earlier station-house identifications might be suppressed however.
# Confessions as the “fruit” of a Payton Violation
- Payton holds that 4th A prohibits the police from effecting a warrantless entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
- New York v. Harris (1990): Police had probable cause to arrest D but arrested him in his home without an arrest warrant, which violated Payton. D was taken into custody and waived his Miranda rights. The Court suppressed statement made in his home, but refused to apply the “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis to the stationhouse confession.
- Rule: A voluntary confession given by D in the station-house after the warrantless in-house arrest are not barred by ER.
- Rationale: The Court held that Brown, Dunaway, and Taylor (discussed above) all involved confessions that stemmed from arrests which were made without probable cause. D’s arrest here, by contrast, was made with probable cause. Therefore, D’s statement at the station was not the product of being in “unlawful custody.” Payton was designed to protect the integrity of the home, not grant criminal suspects protection from statements made outside their premises where the police have PC to arrest the suspect.
- Another rationale: Police could have arrested D, even w/o a warrant, had they done so outside of his house rather than inside it. If D had made a station-house confession under this scenario, there would have been no illegality to taint the confession. Cops didn’t benefit by their unlawful entry b/ anything incriminating the police gathered from arresting D in his home has been excluded..
- Weisselberg: Thinks that this case is a statement about the importance of having a warrant/not violating Payton. A Payton violation might not be severe enough to have continuing impact upon the suspect at the station house.
|Brown v. Illinois||New York v. Harris|
|Arrest inside Home||No||Yes|
|PC for Arrest||No||Yes, but no warrant|
|Statement Made at Home||No||Yes, suppressed|
|Statement Made at Stationhouse||Yes, suppressed||Yes, not suppressed|
- Facts: D was arrested outside his apartment and the cops then entered his apartment w/o a warrant. Cops conducted a limited security check and observed drug paraphernalia. Two cops remained in the apartment awaiting a warrant, which was not issued until 19 hours after the initial entry.
- Issue: whether items not observed during the illegal entry and first discovered by the agents executing the valid search warrant, should have been suppressed.
- The Court allowed the evidence because the issuance of the search warrant did not depend on items seized during the initial, illegal search. The Court said that there was an independent source for the items seized. Prior to the illegal entry the cops already knew enough to obtain a search warrant.
# Murray v. U.S. (1988): Extends Segura to cover situation where the police are illegally on premises, they discover particular evidence, they apply for a warrant, and they “rediscover” the evidence. The ultimate question is whether the warrant was sought and issued on the basis of info wholly unconnected to the illegal entry.
- As long as the trial court is convinced that the illegal entry did not contribute either to the officer’s decision to get a warrant, or that info obtained during that entry was presented to the Magistrate and affected his decision to issue the warrant, the evidence will be admissible even though its initial discovery was illegal.
- Facts: Cops enter warehouse w/out warrant and see bales of marijuana. They then submitted warrant to magistrate, not mentioning what they had already seen.
- Note: Were the officers motivated by what they say in their first entry? Intent/motive?
H. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine# Nix v. Williams (Williams II) (1984): Evidence may be admitted if it would “inevitably” have been discovered by other police techniques had it not first been obtained through the illegal discovery. It is the prosecution which bears the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the information would inevitably have been discovered by lawful means.
- Police unconstitutionally elicited location of dead body through Christian burial speech.
- Rationale: In order to deter illegal police conduct, prosecution should not be placed in better position than it would have been in had there been no illegality. Where evidence would inevitably have been discovered, admitting the evidence does not place the prosecution in a better position than it would have been in had there been no illegality. And keeping the evidence out puts the prosecution in a worse position, for which there is no justification.
- No good faith requirement: So how do we deter violations of 6th Amend when evidence will be admitted?
- Issue is whether 2nd statement should be suppressed b/c of 1st statement.
- Ct said D was in custody, so M violation occurred in D’s house.
- Hold: Fruits doctrine does not apply b/c a Miranda violation is not a core violation of the 5th Amendment.
- Different result if 1st statement was coerced: If 1st statement was not voluntary within the meaning of the 5th Amend, the 2nd statement would be excluded
- Test: DP voluntariness test applies. Was the 2nd confession “knowingly and voluntarily made.” If so, it will not be invalidated merely because there was a prior, illegally-obtained confession having the same substance.
- Dickerson is current law on constitutionality of Miranda. Is it inconsistent w/ Elstad? There is a circuit split regarding fruit of Miranda violation.
III. The Impeachment Exception (to the exclusionary rule)
- Walder v. U.S. (1954): Evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment may be used to impeach a defendant’s credibility. Thus state was allowed to introduce illegally obtained heroin to impeach D’s claim made during his direct examination that he had never possessed any narcotics.
# Harris v. New York (1971): A defendant’s confession, obtained in violation of Miranda, can be introduced to impeach the defendant’s direct trial testimony, even though it could not be used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief.
- Oregon v. Hass (1975): Confession can be used to impeach even where D receives Miranda warnings, asks for a lawyer, and is questioned before the lawyer is provided.
# People v. Peevy (1998): CA Supreme Ct. held that Harris-Hass exception applies even when a police officer deliberately fails to honor a suspect’s request for counsel for the very purpose of obtaining evidence for impeachment purposes.
- U.S. v. Havens (1980): Statements made during Cross-Examination may also be impeached by illegally obtained evidence.
# Michigan v. Harvey (1990): If D requests a lawyer during his arraignment, and police violate 6th Amend (Michigan v. Jackson) by initiating conversations with him without counsel being present, those statements can be used to impeach D’s testimony at trial.
- Limitation: James v. Illinois (1990): Illegally-obtained evidence may not be used to impeach the testimony of defense witnesses other than the D himself.
- Silence as Impeachment.
- When Ds claimed at trial that they were framed, prosecutor asked why they hadn’t told this story to the arresting officer.
- Ct. held that this didn’t protect Ds’ invocation of Miranda right to remain silent. It would be a deprivation of due process to allow this type of impeachment b/c M warnings ensure that silence will not be used against you.
- Exceptions: If D states at trial that he did tell his alibi to police upon arrest, prosecutor may use his silence to impeach this testimony.
- Anderson v. Charles (1980): D takes stand and testifies. On cross-examination, prosecutor can ask why D’s direct testimony contradicts the statements he made after receiving and waiving Miranda warnings.
# Jenkins v. Anderson (1980): Pre-arrest silence may be used to impeach.
- D raised self-defense claim and prosecutor impeached by pointing out that for two weeks after the murder, D failed to go to authorities.
- Ct. distinguished from Doyle on the ground that no governmental action induced D to remain silent before arrest. Failure to speak occurred before D was taken into custody and given Miranda warnings.
# Fletcher v. Weir (1982): If state does not give Miranda warnings and D remains silent, state may cross-examine about post-arrest silence when D chooses to take the stand. Fucked up!
THE GRAND JURY
- The Investigative Grand Jury: Authority & Advantages.
- Dual Functions: The grand jury provides a “shield” against mistaken and vindictive prosecutions in deciding whether or not to issue an indictment. The grand jury also acts s a “sword,” combating crime, in the use of its investigative authority.
- Subpoena authority: The basic advantage of the grand jury stems from its ability to use the subpoena authority of the court that impaneled it.
- subpoena duces tecum to obtain tangible evidence. Unlike a search warrant, subpoena can issue without probable cause.
- subpoena ad testificandum to obtain testimony. Both are supported by the court’s authority to hold in contempt any person who willfully refuses, without legal justification, to comply with a subpoena’s directive.
- Psychological pressure: Proponents of GJ investigations claim that the psychological pressure of GJ interrogation enables the GJ to obtain statements from witnesses unwilling to cooperate with the police.
- Immunity Grants: Court order granting a witness sufficient immunity from future prosecution to supplant the witness’ self-incrimination privilege. Once the recalcitrant witness has been granted immunity, he may no longer rely upon the privilege.
- Secrecy: Varies among jurisdictions, butt almost always adds to the grand jury’s effectiveness as an investigative agency.
- Witness: Can be- Target of investigation. Subject of investigation (person or corporation in whom prosecution has some interest. Maybe will be indicted depending on evidence). Witness.
Fourth Amendment Challenges# Boyd v. U.S. (1886): Significant only as an historical remnant; almost all of it has fallen to the way-side. Held that compulsory production of private documents violates the 4th and 5th Amendments as they run together. This analysis has since been repudiated.
- U.S. v. Dionisio (1973): Grand jury subpoenaed 20 people to give voice exemplars. D refused, citing the 4th and 5th Amendments and was held in contempt.
- Ct. held that a grand jury subpoena to give voice exemplar is not an “seizure” within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. It doesn’t even have to withstand, then, the reasonableness test.
- Ct. also held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a person’s voice b/c it’s exposed to the public, just like his face. Not testimony was req’d, Ds were given script to read.
- The ct. notes, however, that a GJ can’t require a witness to testify against himself, and can’t require the production by a person of private books and records that would incriminate him.
- U.S. v. Calandra (1974) Exclusionary Rule does not apply to grand jury proceedings.
- Because the GJ does not finally adjudicate guilt or innocence, it has traditionally been allowed to pursue its investigative and accusatorial functions unimpeded by the evidentiary and procedural restrictions applicable to a criminal trial.
- ER applies to trial itself
# Other Objections to Investigation.
- U.S. v. R. Enterprises, Inc. (1991): When a subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation. [Establishes very narrow grounds for suppressing grand jury subpoenas]
- Nixon req’d relevancy, admissibility, and specificity. But Nixon was a trial case.
- Fed Rule of Criminal Pro17(c) requires subpoenas to be “reasonable.”
- However, a court may be justified in a case where unreasonableness is alleged in requiring the Government to reveal the general subject of the grand jury’s investigation before requiring the challenging party to carry its burden of persuasion.
- The court may require the Government to reveal the subject of the investigation to the trial court in camera, so that the court may determine whether the motion to quash has a reasonable prospect for success before it discloses the subject matter to the challenging party.
# The Fifth Amendment Privilege/Subpoenas.
# Counselman v. Hitchcock (1892): 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination applies in grand jury proceedings—if the witness believes that the testimony he is being asked to give might incriminate him in a subsequent criminal case, he may decline to testify of 5th Amendment grounds.
- No right not to appear: 5th Amendment does not allow the witness to refuse to appear at all—the witness must appear in response to the subpoena, and must then state for the record the 5th Amendment claim.
- U.S. v. Balsys (1998): D held for deportation had fear of prosecution in other countries; no fear of prosecution in the U.S. Court held that D could not utilize the 5th Amendment privilege to refuse to provide answers which could subject him to a “real and substantial danger of prosecution in Lithuania and Israel.”
# U.S. v. Mandujano (1976): Plurality of the court held that no Miranda warnings necessary. There is no inherent compulsion to speak in a grand jury hearing like there is in a police station.
# D was advised of 5th Amend privilege. But not told that atty would be appointed to him for free.
- Court also discussed the procedure to be followed when a witness asserts the privilege. The grand jury has two choices: (1) If the desired testimony is of marginal value, the GJ can pursue other avenues of inquiry. (2) If the testimony is thought sufficiently important, the GJ can seek a judicial determination as to the bona fides of the witness’ 5th Amendment claim.
- If in fact there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger to the witness from his being compelled to answer, the prosecutor must then determine whether the answer is of such overriding importance as to justify a grant of immunity to the witness.
- If immunity is sought by the prosecutor and granted by the presiding judge, the witness can then be compelled to answer, on pain of contempt, even though the testimony would implicate the witness in criminal activity.
- Immunity: The use of an immunity grant by the grand jury precludes reliance on the 5th Amendment self-incrimination privilege.
- Transactional Immunity: Protects the witness against any prosecution for the entire transaction (drug deal, robbery) about which he has testified. Two Limitations:
- Transactional immunity does not preclude a prosecution for perjury based on the immunized testimony.
- Transactional immunity does not extend to an event described in an answer totally unresponsive to the question asked. Thus, witness can’t get immunity from prosecution for all previous criminal acts by simply referring to those acts in his testimony without regard to the subject on which he was asked to testify.
- Use Immunity: Much narrower than transactional immunity. Merely protects against the direct or indirect use of the testimony in a subsequent prosecution.
- Kastigar v. U.S. (1972): Established that use immunity is sufficient to nullify the witness’ 5th Amendment privilege. But see below for Kastigar’s requirements that prosecution met prerequisite of showing that its evidence is independently derived.
# Use/Derivative Use: federal immunity. Cannot use oral testimony directly. Cannot use physical evidence derived from testimony either. This is the most common type of immunity granted.
# Subsequent Prosecutions and the Problem of Taint: The prosecution must prove that it did not use the testimony even to:
- obtain leads to information or witnesses,
- focus the subsequent investigation,
- interpret the independently-derived evidence
- plan cross-examination, or make any other kind of use of the grand jury testimony. Also, the subsequent criminal trial must be conducted by prosecutors who did not witness, or read the transcript of, D’s grand jury testimony.
- The preferred practice is for the prosecutor to make a record of all evidence collected prior to the grant of immunity, file that record with the court, and then at the taint hearing, note its intent to utilize only that previously acquired evidence and further evidence directly acquired from that evidence.
# The Subpoena Duces Tecum: Major issue is whether the material sought is “testimonial” for 5th Amendment purposes.
# Doe II (1988): Rule: In order to be testimonial, an accused’s communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information. Only then is a person compelled to be a witness against himself.
- Facts: In Doe, D was ordered to sign forms directing any bank where he had an account to deliver records of his accounts to the GJ.
- Ct. held that executing this form was not testimonial because by signing the form, D made no statement, explicit or implicit, regarding the existence of a foreign bank account or his control over any such account.
- The ct. held that executing the directive was analogous to the production of a handwriting sample or voice exemplar: non-testimonial acts. Having the bank produce the docs is also not testimonial.
# Fisher v. U.S. (1976): Requiring attorney to produce client’s tax records prepared by accountant is not protected by the 5th Amendment because non-testimonial.
- Facts: IRS interviewed taxpayers; taxpayers got documents from their accountants; taxpayers gave these documents to their lawyers to help with the IRS investigations; IRS summoned the lawyers for these docs.
- Taxpayer can assert the privilege even thought the attorney has the records. .
- But, the 5th Amendment does not serve as a general protector of privacy. The 5th Amendment protects against the act of compelled self-incrimination. Protects the act of production, not the contents themselves.
# Doe I (1984): Subpoena directed a sole proprietor to produce a broad range of records. D asserted privilege. Rule: The biz records here, like the accountant’s workpapers in Fisher, had been prepared voluntarily, and therefore only their production, and not their creation, was compelled. The 5th Amend does not protect contents of private papers.
- Hubbell (2000): D made plea bargain for tax fraud. Prosecutor believed that he did not produce all the records, so subpoenaed “all records” connected to scandal. D produced docs, and whole new case against him developed.
* The really broad request made it hard for the taxpayer to identify which docs to produce. It req’d D’s to think testimonial aspect
- Cannot be prosecuted later for docs he produced b/c he was granted immunity.
# Braswell v. U.S. (1988): Custodian of corporate records may not resist a subpoena for business records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the 5th Amendment.
- D, president of 2 corporations, argued that producing the documents had testimonial significance, which would incriminate him individually.
- Had D conducted his business as a sole proprietorship, he would be entitled to show that his act of production would entail testimonial self-incrimination. However, since D operated his business through the corporate form, he was subject to the collective entity rule.
- The theory behind this rule is that a corporate custodian holds documents in a representative rather than personal capacity. The custodian’s production of the documents is not a personal act, but an act of the corporation. Corporations do not have any 5th Amendment privileges because they are fictitious individuals.
# Role of Grand Jury Review
- 5th Amend ensures that a federal charge for a felony offense will not be brought without granting the accused the protection of the review and acceptance of the charge by the GJ.
- Keep in mind the USSC’s interpretation of the scope of the 5th Amend. The grand jury has a limited role. GR screens cases to see if there is probable cause.
- States may have other procedure even when not constitutionally required. Some states have established other protections.
- Hurtado (1884): There can be prosecution by means of information instead of indictment. The 14th Amend does not require all states to use the grand jury.
- Challenges to Evidence before the GJ
Costello (1956): Permissible for prosecution to get indictment from testimony of three agents. Hearsay evidence is OK.
- Williams (1992): Is there a duty to put exculpatory evidence before the GJ? No. Just needs evidence to show probable cause. The jury determines probable cause only, not guilt.
- In CA, jury req’d to hear all evidence, including exculpatory. Motion to dismiss indictment when no probable cause.
- Bank of Nova Scotia (1988): Federal Harmless Error Standard. Rule: Did the error substantially influence the jury’s decision to indict?
- Mechanik (1986): Postconviction Review. Rule 6 was violated when two government witnesses testified in tandem. D made motion to dismiss. Jury gave guilty verdict after trial.
- Trial courts have incentive to defer ruling on motion to dismiss until after the verdict.
|Motion to Dismiss Indictment||Appeal? YES||Appeal? NO|
| Prior to Trial- granted
|Govt can appeal||
No interlocatory appeal
| After Trial- guilty verdict
||Court can’t grant motion (Mechanik)||No, b/c jury found guilt beyond r. doubt|
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
Waiver of right to Counsel
- Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) – strong presumption against waiver of right to counsel. Waiver is valid when “intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.”
- trial judge must investigate long and thoroughly the circumstances of the case to determine if there was waiver. Von Moltke v. Billies
# Can’t presume waiver from a silent record. Carnley v. Cochran
- Faretta v. California (1975) *
- FACTS: D requested he be allowed to represent self. Had HS diploma, had represented himself before, and thought PD had too heavy a caseload.
- HELD: there is a 6th A right of self-representation
- Defines counsel as an assistant- shouldn’t be imposed on an unwilling D.
- Right to defend is given directly to the accused; for it is he who suffers the consequences if the defense fails.
- Court focuses on autonomy
- Trial judge may terminate self-representation if D deliberately engages in serious and obstructionist misconduct.
- A State may, even over objection by the D, appoint a “standby counsel” to aid the D
- This case is really the exception
# Martinez (2000): Right to self representation does not extend to appeals
# Godinez v. Moran (1993)
- FACTS: D found competent to stand trial, fired lawyers, plead guilty and got himself the death penalty.
- HELD: Standard for competency to stand trial is the same as the competency standard for pleading guilty or for waiving right to counsel.
- Standard= whether the D has sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a rational as well as functional understanding of the proceedings against him
# McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984)
- FACTS: claimed 6th violation when trial judge appointed stand-by counsel over D’s objections.
- HELD: No violation. No categorical bar on participation by standby counsel, BUT there are two limits:
- pro se D entitled to preserve actual control over the case he chooses to present to the jury
- participation by stand-by w/o consent should not be allowed to destroy the jury’s perception that the D is representing himself.
- DISSENT: standby counsel here interfered. Maj places too much attention on jury perception and not enough on the perception of the D. The Maj test is insufficient for protecting fundamental interests- effective denial of right to self-rep.
# Savage v. Estelle - D was a severe stutterer, standby counsel ended up doing most everything. 9th Cir ended up using provision that said that if a person was disruptive, they couldn’t represent themselves to say standby counsels participation was okay- said this situation was close enough.
- Judges in general are very troubled with seeing people in court unable to effectively represent themselves.
=== RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF ONE’S CHOICE ===
- Caplin & Drysdale v. U.S. (1989) *
- FACTS: D wanted to pay for attorney, but $ was drug $ and subject to forfeiture.
- ISSUE: Whether federal drug forfeiture statute includes an exemption for assets that a D wishes to use to pay an attorney who conducted his defense in the case where the forfeiture was sought.
- HELD: No exemption. Since nothing in §853 prevents a D from hiring the attorney of his choice, or disqualifies any atty from serving as a D’s counsel, statute consistent with the 5th and 6th A.
- Gov’t interest in obtaining full recovery of all forfeitable assets overrides any 6th A interest in permitting criminals to use assets adjudged forfeitable to pay for their defense.
- DISSENT: disables D’s defense. The right to a private attorney fosters trust & there is no quality guarantee in gov’t appointed help. Right to counsel of choice. Forfeiture substantially undermines every interest served by the 6th A right to chosen counsel.
=== EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ===
- Overall: The right to effective assistance is a derivative of the 6th A right to assistance, it only applies where 6th A right to counsel applies.
- Applies in: state ct trials, federal ct trials, 1st appeal
- Doesn’t apply in: Habeas corpus, discretionary hearings, writ of certiorari. No right to effective counsel in these proceedings even if you hired the lawyer yourself.
# Strickland v. Washington (1984) *
- FACTS: D plead guilty and waived right to jury against counsel’s advice- for 3 brutal capital murders, torture, kidnapping and attempted murder. Counsel felt hopeless- only used wife and mom as character witnesses, didn’t request psych exam, and didn’t request a pre-sentence report because the results would be harmful.
- HELD: Right to counsel = the right to effective assistance. No violation of right found here.
- Test: to prove ineffective counsel must show
# Performance prong: counsel’s performance was deficient
- below professional standards. Must identify acts or omissions.
- Strategic choices are virtually unchallengeable
- Prejudice prong: errors were serious and deprived D of a fair trial
- Must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
- Reasonable probability = probability stuff to undermine confidence in the outcome. (not more-likely-than-not)
# STANDARD: Whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
- Overall focus on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.
# DISSENT: disagrees with reasonableness standard and ‘undermine confidence of the outcome’ standard too malleable, doesn’t give guidance.
- If incompetence is shown, why need one go further and show prejudice. All should have a right to competent counsel.
- He would not accept a reliable verdict if atty was not competent/effective.
- Application? These claims are often litigated in post-conviction petitions, rather than in trial ct or on appeal. Certain deficiencies of performance won’t show up on the trial record.
- U.S. v. Cronic (1984)
- FACTS: D’s counsel pulled out and judge appointed young real estate lawyer with no experience and no time to prepare.
- Rule: Need an individualized showing of each prong- court can’t infer from the circumstances that atty was ineffective. Must show specific errors.
# Bell: Don’t infer ineffectiveness. Here atty did not give closing argument. But this may have been strategic choice. It prevented prosecutor from giving strong rebuttal in his closing argument.
- Nix v. Whitside (1986)
- FACTS: D wanted to testify falsely, counsel told him that he would have to tell the court, etc. D didn’t perjure himself and got 2nd degree murder. Claimed ineffective assistance b/c counsel did not let him testify as he proposed.
- HELD: Representation here was well w/in the accepted standards- no breach of duty no deprivation of the right to counsel. Also no prejudice to D.
- Duty of loyalty and advocacy, but also must disclose perjury.
- CONCUR (3 separate ones) : Ct can’t make ethical rules for lawyers practicing in state courts. D here failed to show prejudice, i.e. anything that deprived D of a fair trial w/ reliable results. No showing of prejudice needn’t look at performance.
=== CONFLICTS ===
- When do we presume prejudice? When there is a conflict of interest. BUT, Cuyler says that prejudice is part of conflict of interest claim, so you do have to make some showing of prejudice.
- Cuyler v. Sullivan (1980)
- FACTS: 3 D’s shared the same counsel. 2 Ds acquitted, 1 D convicted.
- ISSUE: May a state prisoner obtain a fed writ of habeas by showing that his retained counsel represented potentially conflicting interests?
- Does trial ct have to inquire about propriety of multiple representations?
- Is the mere possibility of a conflict of interest enough to show deprivation of right to counsel?
- HELD: Court need not initiate inquiry into propriety of multiple representation. Multiple representation doesn’t violate the 6th A unless there is a conflict.
- RULE: D must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.
- Show that some conflict existed and that it explained a particular action or inaction of counsel adversely affected D’s representation.
# Burger v. Kemp (1987)
- FACTS: co-D’s represented by law partners. Each D’s confession emphasized the culpability of the other. Separate proceedings.
- HELD: No real showing of conflict. Court will not infer that possible conflict affected representation.
- Multiple representation is not per se unconst, must show that counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that this conflict adversely affected the lawyers performance. On occasion, multiple rep can benefit D.
- It is unresolved how much of a link must be shown between a decision made and the conflict, before prejudice will be presumed.
- Fed R. Crim 44: must inquire into conflict when multiple representations.
- Former representation: Same lawyer represented victim and D.
- Did trial judge have duty to inquire into this conflict? No.
- No showing that conflict affected representation per Cuyler.
- Dissent: Conflict can affect relationship between atty and client. Lawyer should have disclosed conflict to court.
# Wheat v. U.S. (1988)
- FACTS: D wanted to have same attorney as 2 other D’s all being charged in a drug conspiracy. Court said this would be a conflict of interest, and imposed separate counsel over D’s objection.
- HELD: No violation of 6th A rights. D.Ct should have substantial latitude in refusing waivers of conflict- can refuse to substitute counsel where conflicts may result.
# RULE: 6th Amend Right to choose one’s own counsel is limited
# DISSENT: Trial Ct shouldn’t get special deference on appeal. Need showing that the likelihood and the dimensions of the feared conflict are substantial- here the conflict was highly speculative.
=== Role of Appointed Counsel ===
- Counsel will be appointed to first appeal as of right. Attorneys cannot make frivolous arguments. What if there are no arguments for attorney to make on appeal? The Court appointed counsel so it has the responsibility to ensure representation.
# Anders v. California (1967)
- HELD: a “no-merit” letter by appointed counsel is insufficient, fails to afford client aid. Counsel must write a brief on anything supporting an appeal and then the Ct must determine if there will be an appeal and appoint new counsel if necessary.
- Attorney must withdraw from case so client can appeal pro se
# Smith v. Robbins (2000)
- Anders is not the only way to deal with this issue. USSC approves of California’s Wende procedure
- Attorney files a brief which summarizes procedural and factual history, attests that he has reviewed the record, requests that the court independently examine the record for arguable issues.
B.Reprosecution after an Acquittal
- Probable cause