Criminal Procedure Braithwate
Due Process- Four definitions-
Medina- Permissable if the state has a preponderance of evidence to
Defendants raise any defense they can because there is no out of pocket expense in doing so.
Do you really want to argue incompetence to the margin? Not really because you don’t want to be held longer than you should.
Hamdi- Not a criminal case in the traditional case. It’s a Habeus Corpus issues where he is being held as an enemy combatant. The twist is that Hamdi is a United States Citizen. Can HAmdi go to a court to dispute is being withheld. What is a criminal case?
Boyd v. United States- Essentially put the 4th and 5th amendment together to form this protection of a zone of privacy. Stolen items, Boyd gave a lot of protection. Boyd cannot exist in a society where we want to regulate property, because where we want to regulate property we need access to certain information.
In order for the society to move in the direction certain rules were fashioned. Collective entities could NOT assert the 5th amendment, ex: Corporations, partnerships etc. Here the courts want to get to the individuals and not allow individuals to hide behind entities.
Another case- US v. Shapiro- For certain transactions, if the law requires you to keep certain records than the gvt could get access to those documents via a subpoena.
Finally, the US v. Marin- Gvt could obtain tools used for a crime. no 5th amendment protection.
Mere Evidence- Anything that is NOT illegal to possess where the GVT has a superior right to the property. Plate glass and Blood (in Schmerber) would be considered mere evidence.
At question is whether or not the defendants are protected by the fourth and fifth amendments from being forced to produce documents that can be used against them. It seems that the point of the fourth amendment is to protect against unreasonable searches and seizures where here there was no search or seizure but only an order to produce or otherwise the prosecutor would be able to make up what those papers would have said and that would be taken as evidence.
Bradley argues that the taking of one’s papers and private books to be used as evidence against him is the same as compelling him to be a witness against himself.
“a search and seizure [was] equivalent [to] a compulsory production of a man’s private papers” and that the search was “an ‘unreasonable search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
The Boyd’s were importing plate glass. There was some sort of fraud. The GVT wanted the duties owed. The Gvt subpeonas an invoice of how much the plate glass is worth. The Boyd’s turn it over against their will. The GVT then used the invoice as evidence. Because the duties had not been paid the consequence was for the boxes of glass to be forfieted for payment.
5th amendment claim “no person shall be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
4th amendment is NOT limited to criminal cases. Protects against unreasonable search and seizures. Under the previous statutes the searches would have been allowed.
This was a functional search because had the Boyd’s NOT complied with the order it would have been treated as a confession of whatever the prosecutor believed the documents would say. Therefor the court decided that it was a search.
Next the court had to decide if the search was unreasonable. A reasonable search or seizure the court defines as ones where there is already a judgment against someone and property is owed. The court decides that this does NOT fall into this category but that it might as well be a criminal case.
The statute says you could get two yrs in prison. The gvt did not bring a criminal case only a forfeiture.
The court says that both the 4th and the 5th relate and overlap each other and that the FUNCTIONALLY APPLY.
They come together to protect privacy and property the “Privacies of Life”.
Some of the language in Boyd contains the seeds of its own destruction.
Boyd LIMITS the GVT in obtaining INFORMATION needed to REGULATE certain activities. In the ABSENCE of such information the gvt cannot regulate such activities.
At this point in time people probably had the most amount of protection from the gvt as far as privacy is concerned. BUT the GVT was going in another direction incompatible with BOYD.
Schmerber v. California- Introduces that rights are about degrees. This is a DUI case and if we do not allow the police to get this blood than how are we going to incriminate him. The 4th amendment becomes less substantive and more procedural.
Brennan strikes down the argument that the blood test was unconstitutional in finding the defendant guilty of driving under the influence. He says that although the blood test was forced it was not reasonable and did not require the defendant to testify against himself.
Schmerber allo
t of a document. In the subsequent subpeona cases the court has said that in respect to documents that are already in existence when the gvt compels you to turn it over they are not compelling the PRODUCTION of that evidence, it already exists. What the gvt is compelling is the ACT of producing the document. The act of producing the document has testimonial or communicative aspects and there are three. When the gvt subpeonas records you 1) Admit that the document exists 2) You are admitting that you possess it AND 3) You are admitting that these are the documents sought so you authenticate them. So if the gvt is going to use any of THIS information against you than there might be a 5th amendment violation.
The 5th amendment is not really about protecting privacy as stated in Schmerber.
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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
1st part is the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 2nd part is the “warrant clause”
Some people say that any search or seizure must be reasonable AND in those cases where the gvt gets a warrant there are requirements to obtain that warrant.
In 1949 when Wolfe v. Colorado imposed the 4th amendment throught the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The Wolfe court DID NOT impose the exclusionary rule to the states. BUT The exclusionary rule had applied to federal courts for some time before that. The amendment says nothing of what to do when there IS a violation.
What roles are the 4th amendment? 1) To protect privacy. 2) To regulate police.
The 4th amendment regulates ANY gvt actor involved in searching and seizing.
The 4th Amendment did not apply to the states until 1949.
