CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I OUTLINE—SPRING 2009
THE CRIMINAL PROCESS
Packer’s Two Models:
Crime Control: goal = fast, efficient, reliable screening and disposition of cases à “assembly line” managed by cops.
Due Process: goal = maintaining defendant’s dignity and autonomy
à adversarial “obstacle course” managed by judges
à Constitutionalization of process based on racism, privacy concerns.
Stuntz: judicial limits on cops empower legislatures and prosecutors.
Seidman: criminal procedure = shell game legitimizing mass incarceration.
Internal police hierarchy: respond to own goals and procedure à styles affect both time and manner of regulation à key issue is discretion.
Management style: bureaucratic and susceptible to control from above.
à engage in scientific management and public administration
à clear rules applied by street cops (still have huge discretion).
à requires citywide allocation of scarce resources.
Street style: intuitive, grassroots and susceptible to control from peers.
à resists authority, relying on intangibles of training and experience.
à common, unspoken code of conduct and sense of solidarity.
à view themselves as isolated and at risk within the community.
Drug crime: huge impact on law enforcement policy à explains racially disparate responses to crime à emphasizes differences in class, geography (crack v. powder).
Roberts: police view black communities as dangerous à sustains continued white domination of blacks in the guise of crime control.
Carbado: police decisions about who belongs where = based on race.
Mauer: interrelation of urban decline and drugs disproportionately affect blacks.
Supreme Court: exercises only limited review over police practices.
Steiker: Post-Warren courts have made more dramatic changes in decision rules than in conduct rules à much more hesitant to exclude evidence than to declare police conduct inappropriate.
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
Two roles in criminal procedure à rights and regulation.
Reasonableness: Traditionally based on probable cause/warrants à more recently a freestanding reasonableness clause with change in Fourth Amendment regulation.
Mapp v. Ohio—Exclusionary Rule: evidence obtained in unreasonable searches and seizures may not be used in state prosecutions à exclusion = privilege associated with fundamental right to privacy, not a personal right of th
substantial.
· Tort remedies more readily available than in 2006 than 1961.
Los Angeles v. Lyons: For federal courts to issue injunction against municipality, victim of police brutality must show he is in immediate danger of irreparable injury à nothing to suggest he would be targeted again.
· Injunctive relief only protects against prospective recurring harms.
Definition of Searches: Searches “outside” Fourth Amendment not subject to warrant requirement or exclusion.
Warren v. Hayden: Warrant to enter home not necessary if the exigencies of the situation make such a course imperative and items that relate to the crime can be seized à outside of Fourth Amendment protection.
· Discards the use of “property interests” to define searches and seizures and instead emphasizes protecting privacy from unreasonable invasions.
· No reason under the Fourth Amendment to distinguish between seizing mere evidentiary materials and seizing instrumentalities of the crime/contraband.
