Select Page

Criminal Procedure
South Texas College of Law Houston
Corn, Geoffrey S.

Criminal Procedure Review Outline
I.        Exclusionary rule and Incorporation
a.       Incorporationàabsorbing the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment
b.      Exclusionary ruleàMapp v. Ohio
                                                               i.      Shock the conscience rule (in Mapp, page 63, Justice Frankfurter’s opinion in Rochin v. California)
                                                             ii.      Fundamental fairness requires the people at the state level to be protected against arbitrary invasions and they can’t use the wrongly acquired evidence
                                                            iii.      Justice Black’s concurrence (Mapp)—4A + 5A = exclusion
1.       No need for a rule because at some point we get the confession—4A exclusion will deprive the fact finder of probative evidence
                                                           iv.      3 pillars
1.       Protection means nothing without exclusion
a.       Operative assumption—if police do their jobs right, then the guilty will be in jail and the innocent have their liberties protected
2.       Deterrenceàdeter faulty police procedures
a.       Only way to constrain police is to let them know that they put not only themselves, but the case in jeopardy
3.       Judicial integrityàsee page 67 (V)
a.       When we allow exclusionary rule evidence to be admitted then it allows disobedience of constitution
II.      4th Amendment
a.       Triggers
                                                               i.      Government action/actor
1.       If noneàno 4A issue
                                                             ii.      Directed against someone who falls under the umbrellaà a “people”
                                                            iii.      Has to be a SEARCH
b.      Protects people not places
c.       Harlan’s concurrence
                                                              i.      2 prong test
1.       ∆ had a subjective expectation of privacy
a.       pervasive government intrusion + knowing exposure to the public
2.       Objectively reasonable
                                                             ii.      Government intrusion into a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP)
                                                            iii.      Be exactly precise as to what government is getting
1.       Words, smells, etc.
                                                           iv.      You can have a search within a search, within a search—separate them out in order to analyze each search on its own
 
d.      Curtilage and open fields doctrine
                                                               i.      4 factors
1.       Proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home
2.       Whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home
3.       The nature of the uses to which the area is put
4.       The steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by
                                                             ii.      Will not necessarily be a search if it is knowingly exposed to the public and no reasonable expectation of privacy
e.      Probable cause (PC)
                                                               i.      Generated by an eyewitness, DNA, physical evidence, etc.
                                                             ii.      Becomes complicated with informants and anonymous tips—chance it’s fabricated
1.       Illinois v. Gatesàtotality of circumstances
a.       Definition of PC is in this case
                                                                                                                                       i.      Want the facts to reveal inside information
1.       If too much, harder to corroborate
                                                                                                                                     ii.      Prediction that only an insider could make
b.      Totality of circumstances does not eliminate the 2 prong test from Katz
                                                                                                                                       i.      This just allows one of the prongs to comp

search incident to citation
3.       Automobile SITLA (ASITLA)—also an exception to PC
a.       It is automatic (changed by Arizona v. Gant—see below)
b.      Lawful arrest
c.       Scope—whole car except for the trunk
                                                                                                                                       i.      Anyone in the car
                                                                                                                                     ii.      Containers in the car (can be searched/opened)
d.      Extends to ∆ who just recently exited the car
e.      Arizona v. Gant (changes the rule completely)
                                                                                                                                       i.      Turned ASITLA into a Michigan v. Long analysis
                                                                                                                                     ii.      Eliminated automatic vehicle search pursuant to a lawful arrest
1.       Reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime would be in the car—pulls Belton back to Chimel
2.       Adds Chimel to autos—expands the wingspan/lunge rule
                                                                                                                                    iii.      Reasonable to believe that either the ∆ can get access to a weapon in the car or evidence of the crime that led to ∆’s arrest
                                                                                                                                   iv.      Once the exigency is eliminated by the cop—can no longer rely on SITLA