Criminal Procedure
I. Searches and Seizures
A. Ch 1: Probable Cause
1. defined: Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge, and of which they have R trustworthy info, are sufficient in themselves, to warrant a man of R caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.
2. to search: that a crime has been or is being committed and reason to believe evidence of it will be there
3. to arrest: that a crime has been committed and the person did it.
4. Aguilar/ Spinelli test: 2 requirements to use informant: basis of knowledge or the underlying circumstances- how did informant get info, and veracity- is informant credible and reliable?
5. totality of circumstances: look at the info given, the informant, the accuracy, and the individual case’s facts. A strong showing of prong or fact under Aguilar/ Spinelli test can make up for another lacking. flexible test
6. warrants and staleness: need a nexus between (cant observe and search 5 weeks later, might not be going on then)
7. Cases:
a) US v. Draper: informant asserted that Draper would be trafficking heroin. The informant did not tell the police how he obtained is info. The police met a train coming form Denver on the morning the informant said and detained a man in the described clothes. The court held that the officer’s sight of a man dressed this was was sufficient to corroborate that the info had an adequate basis for the info he had given. The court held that there was probable cause because they had been able to rely on this informant before, and the police would be derelict in their duties if they did not pursue this avenue.
b) Aguilar v. Texas: Material form an informant could suffice to establish probable cause ofr a search or arrest warrant only if two conditions were met:
(1) Anguilar two prong test
(a) The court said that the judge cannot accept without question the informant’s suspicion, belief, or mere conclusion. He must have all the information in front of them at once. He needs 2 things (Anguilar/Spenelli test)
i) Basis of knowledge: Underlying circumstances of the source of informant’s knowledge….how the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed to There had to be evidence-usually in the form of an affidavit fromt he officer seeking the warrant-that the informant was a reliable witness-either because he had been reliable in the past, or because there were special reasons to believe that his info in this particular case was reliable AND
ii) Veracity of the informant: Some of the underlying circumstances that the officer used to deem the informant as credible (how believable–this information checks out) or reliable (percentage of reliability)….information from which the officer concluded that the informant whose identity need not be disclosed was credible, or his information was reliable. There had to be facts showing the basis of knowledge of the informant, this is, the particular means by which he came upon the info which he supplied to the police.
c) Cunha v. Superior Court:Two officers were in an area purported to have high drug trafficking. When they saw people acting suspiciously, they went up to them and asked them if they were dealing drugs and they answered no, and then immediately searched them. The officers did not simply detain, they immediately arrested. The test remains: would the circumstances warrant a man of reasonable caution who possessed such knowledge in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. There MUST be more present than what was present here.
d) Illinois v. Gates: Police received an anonymous letter that was extremely detailed regarding ∆s drug activity. The police researched the information and was able to verify some of what the letter said. An officer signed an affidavit of the information and submitted it to the judge with the letter and the judge issued a warrant. The Supreme Court decided that the issue of whether an informant’s info creates probable cause for a search or arrest is to be determined by the totality of the circumstances. This court utilized the TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES test: its flexible…permits a balanced assessment of the relative weights of all the indications of reliability that goes along with the informant’s tip. This allows one of the prongs of the A/S test to be less or more based on how heavy the other information is.
e) People v. Graham: Two officers observed five separate transactions involving a paper bag, but couldn’t see what was in the bag. One officer approach the ∆ and the other officer opened up the bag and discovered cocaine. The court said, using the totality of circumstances, any experienced officer with his history in making narcotics arrests and using good common sense, after observing the ∆ and his five customers would conclude that the defendant was involved in the sale of narcotics. The officer’s observations and assessment of the ∆s actions in the circumstances demonstrated probable cause to search the brown bag for drugs and to arrest the∆. Probable cause to search-high probability that the ∆ committed the crime and the brown paper bag held the contraband.
B. Ch 2: The Exclusionary Rule
1. Usually if there is a warrant, then the search is valid, but you have to look at the validity of the warrant.
2. Usually if there not a warrant, then the search is not valid, but it may meet an exception
3. cases
a) Mapp v. Ohio: Evidence seized thru an unR search, is not admissible in state court either bc of judicial integrity, symmetry between state and fed courts, deterrence, uphold the constitution, and states are already doing so we do value the exclusionary rule. Most litigation about the Fourth Amendment validity of a particular search and seizure arises in the following manner: a search is conducted, and evidence is seized. After the suspect is arrest, he seeks to show, at a suppression hearing, that the search was conducted in violation of the 4th. If he can show this, then the evidence whish was obtained as a result of the search will not be admissible at trial, in either the feder
If the exclusionary rule’s purpose is to deter, and it is not going to deter anything in this instance. The police will not be deterred in a good faith attempt and the magistrate has issued a good faith warrant and the police followed. We want to encourage warrants and when the police have gotten warrants we cannot deter that action because the magistrate made a mistake in the warrant.
(2) Good faith exceptions do not apply if:
(a) Search warrant is facially deficient-not particular enough
(b) Magistrate has abandoned his impartial, third party role
(c) Police officer knows the information is false, or is recklessly false
(d) Probable cause is lacking
(e) Warrant refers to a prior illegal search
(3) Even if, for example, an officer runs your license, finds a warrant, but it is a mistake, and he arrests you and finds drugs in your car, the judge will overlook the arrest because it was done on a good faith basis and use the drugs found in your car against you.
e) U.S. v. Savoca: The fact there is probable case to arrest a person for a crime does not automatically give the police probable cause to search his residence or other areas in which he has been observed for evidence of that crime. Established that the existence of probable cause to arrest will not necessarily establish probable cause to search. Although there was a search warrant, the information in the search warrant was not good enough to make a valid warrant-there was too much distance between where the robbery was committed and where the ∆s were arrested and the time in between was not clear–>Staleness Issue- needed to be a nexus between that room and those robberies.
C. Ch 3: What is a “Search”?
1. a search is anything that takes advantage of our justifiable expectation of privacy
2. Katz test is 2 prong
a) subjective: did D expect privacy there?
b) objective: is society prepared to recognize it as a place of privacy?
3. Assessing the degree of intrusion (from Oliver v. US)
a) intention of the framers
b) use to which the person has put a location
c) our societal understanding that certain areas deserve the most scrupulous protection from intrusion
(1) such as….we do have a R expectation of privacy in
(a) sole of your shoes
(b) curtilage of home
(2) but not….
(a) the beeper on your car
(b) speaking in another language
(c) widows near the street
4. Cases:
Katz v. U.S.: 4th amendment search or seizure only takes place whena
