Constitutional Criminal Procedure Outline

Constitutional Criminal Procedure- Outline
(Prof. Smith- Spring 2012)
 
 
 
I.                  THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
 
Weeks v. United States
·         Fourth amend intended to protect everyone and not just criminals
·         Court is not discussing a criminal sanction
·         The court suggested that the use of the papers as evidence at trial should be considered prejudicial error as opposed to saying that the evidence should have been excluded
o   Motion to suppress is very prevalent today
 
Wolf v. Colorado
·         The exclusionary rule is the only viable rule
·         Argument: that the 4th amend is the only viable option
·         Palko v. Conn.- implicit in the concept of ordered liberty as compared to our all those rights which the courts must enforce bc they are basic to OUR free society
 
Mapp v. Ohio
·         Elkins case- disgarded the silver platter doctrine- which said that the police go and get evidence and then hand it over the FBI and the FBI would not be held accountable for the evidence handed to them on a “silver platter” by the state police
·         If the 4th amend is going to be applied to the states, then it must be bundled with a sanction (if a right exist, then a sanction must exist to back it up- L. Smith)
·         The Elkins case- said that exclusionary principle removes the incentive
·         Memorize Cardozo quote from Defore case- “the criminal is to go free bc the constable has blundered.”
·         Really bad cops don’t care about the exclusionary rule. They will go in and get what they want and hope that maybe it will lead them to evidence they can use later.
·         What alternatives might there be to the exclusionary rule? –
 
Two Rationales for the exclusionary rule:
1)      Deterrence from bad policing
2)      Maintaining judicial integrity
a.       If these are the rationale, how would you argue it when the police act “in good faith”? If it pure accident?
II.               LIMITING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE
·         Functions of the grand jury:
o   1) determine whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed
o   2) protect citizens against unfounded (groundless) criminal prosecutions
 
United States v. Calandra
 
Issues:
1) Whether to extend the exclusionary rule to grand jury proceedings
 
Court’s final resolution:
–          The court weighs the potential injury to the historic role and functions of the grand jury against the potential benefits of the rule applied to the circumstances of this case. The court decides that the exclusionary rule is used just a deterrent against for future unlawful police conduct and that it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury proceedings would significantly further that goal.
o   Brennan dissents and argues that the exclusionary rule is more than just “a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect . . .” but that it is “part and parcel of the Fourth Amendment’s limitation upon [governmental] encroachment of individual privacy,” and “an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments,” that “gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and , to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice.”
 
United States v. Leon (suppression is appropriate if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by having information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth)
-Dis ct granted motion on the ground that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause. The ct of apps affirmed the suppression order. The sup ct then adopted a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule
 
Issues:
1) Whether the 4th amend exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in prosecution’s case-in-chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. (Whether to exclude evidence obtained under a search warrant issued by a neutral judge when it is later found that probable cause for the warrant was insufficient?)
 
Court’s final resolution:
–          No, only when a warrant is grounded upon an affidavit knowingly or recklessly false has the Supreme Court of the United States (”Supreme Court”) suppressed the evidence obtained as a result. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather to punish magistrates and judges for their errors. Second, there exists no evidence that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (”Constitution”) and that their actions would require the ultimate sanction of exclusion. Third, there is no evidence that suppression of evidence obtained under a search warrant will have any deterrent effect upon judges and magistrates. Judges and magistrates are not adjuncts to law enforcement officials and as such are neutral and have no stake in the outcome of criminal prosecutions. The suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those instances where exclusion would promote the purposes of the exclusionary rule. An officer acting in good faith and within the scope of a search warrant should not be subjected to Fourth Amendment constitutional violations. It is the magistrate’s or judge’s responsibility to ascertain whether the warrant is supported by sufficient information to support probable cause. However, the officer’s reliance must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy where the magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth.
 
Groh v. Ramirez
Issues:
1) Whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment, and if so,
2) Whether petitioner nevertheless is entitled to qualified immunity, given that a Magistrate Judge, relying on an affidavit that particularly described the items in question, found probable cause to conduct the search?
 
Defendant’s (petitioner) proposed resolution:
–          Argues that even though the warrant was invalid, the search nevertheless was “reasonable” w/in the meaning of the 4th amendment- the magistrate authorized the search on the basis of adequate evidence of probable cause, that petitioner orally described to respondents the items to be seized, and that the search did not exceed the limits intended by the magistrate and described by the petitioner.
Court’s final resolution:
–          the court disagrees with the petitioner’s contentions. It states that the warrant did not describe the items to be seized at all. Bc petitioner did not have in his possession a warrant particularly describing the things he intended to seize, proceeding with the search was clearly “unreasonable” under the 4th amend.
o   I think this case is used to realign the court with the exclusionary rule and narrow the “good faith” rule. To essentially bring the exclusionary rule back into a strict construction of the 4th amend
 
Nix v. Williams (another exception to the exclusionary rule- inevitable discovery exception- )
–          Exclusion of evidence that would inevitably have been discovered adds nothing to either the integrity or fairness of a criminal trial.
 
Class notes- 1/17/12
(for next class-
 
US v. Calandra
·         2 issues- 1) whether D can be forced to testify against himself? No 2) whether evidence can be excluded from the grand jury? No
 
US v. Leon
·         “good faith” rule-
o   When we have people acting in good faith, the reasoning for the exclusionary rule falters, therefore, the exclusionary rule should no longer exist.
o   There can be no good faith search where the warrant is invalid on its face
Groh v. Ramirez
·          
 
Ch. 2 Protected Interests
 
2. The Emergence of “Expectation of Privacy” Analysis
 
·         Katz doctrine-
 
Katz v. United States (rule:
 
–          Rule- where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is a 4th amend violation if search and seizure is done w/o a warrant
–          RULE- two fold req:
o   First, that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and,
o   Second, that th