Select Page

Criminal Procedure
Stetson University School of Law
Flowers, Roberta K.

Criminal Procedure Outline

Spring 2016- Flowers

Overview- TAKE A SNAPSHOT!

Always start with the evidence!!!!

4th Amendment Analysis

Is the 4th Amendment Implicated?

Is there governmental action?

If there is not, then 4th Amendment doesn’t apply- No evidence will be suppressed
If yes, proceed->

Nature of the Contact- Is it proper contact?

Encounter- no cause
Stop- Reasonable suspicion
Arrest- PC

Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Subjective expectation
Expectation Society Recognizes

Location of Evidence
Location of Observer
Sensory Enhancement

If No-> 4th amendment does NOT apply- no evidence is suppressed
If Yes-> 4th Amendment is implicated

Is the 4th Amendment Violated?

Is there a search warrant?

Yes- Is the warrant valid?

Neutral & Detached Magistrate
Probable Cause- where the “facts and circumstances within the arresting officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that and offense has been or is being committed”

Totality of the Circumstances- IL v. Gates

Officer experience is not to be considered, just a lense- Commonwealth v. Dunlap

Observation by officer, reliable of informant, statement against interest, corroboration of information

How much info., about future, location, place- location item is located found, movement of people, corroborated evidence by LEO

Under Oath

Describe place and evidence to be searched

If ALL are satisfied, then VALID- no evidence will be suppressed

Yes- is it valid?

NO- Go to exceptions to a Warrant!

No- Is there an EXCEPTION that applies?

Search Incident to Valid Arrest- SIVA
Stop and Frisk
Exigent Circumstances

Plus Probable Cause*

Automobile Exception
Plain View Doctrine

Administrative Search

Is an exception satisfied?

Yes- then search is valid- no evidence will be suppressed
No- then search is ILLEGAL!- Go to Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary Rule applicable?

Exception to the Exclusionary Rule*

Good Faith Exception
Proceedings- Not on exam
Inevitable Discovery/ Independent Source
Impeachment- Not on exam
Attenuation/ Purge

Yes- there an exception is satisfied then evidence will not be suppressed
No- Evidence will be SUPRESSED

5th Amendment Analysis

Is the statement suppressed from a prior 4th amendment violation?

Was the 4th Amendment Implicated (GO THRU ANALYSIS OF 4TH A.)

Nature of the contact

DISCUSS RS/PC HERE

Was it proper contact?
Was the 4th amendment violated?

Not proper justification

Fruit of the Poisonous tree

Is the 5th amendment implicated
Is Miranda Required (Because of Inherently compulsive environment)

Custodial- deprived of freedom of action in any significant way
Interrogation- questioning initiated by LEO

Innis- words or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and in fact elicit such a response
Routine Booking exception*

Was there a proper Waiver?

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily (heavy burden on the state to show if not express= preponderance of the evidence) p. 852

Expressed

* state of mind of the LEO is irrelevant
Can selective waive rights by agreeing to discuss certain things and not others

Yes the Miranda was not violated
No, Miranda was violated

Was Miranda violated?

No warnings given
Improper warnings
Improper Waiver
Did the defendant invoke his right?

Requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for right
Counsel- must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney
To remain silent- must sufficiently articulate desire to remain silent

Did the defendant re-invoke his rights?

Break in interrogation

Length of time = 14 days?
Re-mirandized

Re-initiated by the defendant
Initiation by the police

Was the evidence tainted (excluded) by this violation

Later statement
Evidence

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

PART I

Chapter 1-Probable Cause

US v. Draper

Reliability of the informant

Probable Cause: Quantity of facts and circumstances within the police officer’s knowledge that would warrant a reasonable person to conclude that the individual in question has committed a crime (in the case of an arrest) or that specific items related to criminal activity will be found at the particular place (in the case of a search).

United States v. Draper

US Supreme Court- 1959

(A tip from a reliable informant, which is corroborated by predicting facts unknowable to a stranger, gives rise to probable cause)

Facts: Without a warrant, a federal narcotics agent arrested Draper, as he disembarked a train. Probable cause for the arrest was based on an informant’s tip, which was corroborated with an accurate, predictive description of the facts surrounding Draper’s return.
Rule: Probable cause exists where the known facts and circumstances would cause a reasonable person to believe that an offense had been, or is being, committed

The Court also held that the agent had, prior to the search and seizure, verified every element of the information provided by the special employee, except for the possession of the heroin. This, therefore, provided enough facts and knowledge to allow the agent to reasonably believe that the defendant was carrying heroin.

The information provided to the agent was reliable in this case because the special employee had been working

ility” of criminal activity

Probable Cause (Evaluate both factors under the “Totality of the Circumstances”)

Credibility of the informant (Why Should the Police believe this person?) (Quality)

Has informant proved reliable in the past?

Basis of informant knowledge (How does the informant know what they claim?) (Quantity)

Informant has first-hand knowledge?
Independent police corroboration support informant’s info?

The information supporting each prong must be sufficiently specific so that the conclusions reached can be meaningfully evaluated by a court

Commonwealth v. Dunlap

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania- 2007

(Police training and experience is not a factor to be added to evidence)

Facts: Nathan Dunlap was charged and convicted of drug offenses after Philadelphia Police observed him engage in drug transactions. The officer testified that he saw Dunlap exchange several “small objects”for money. The officer said that in view of his training and experience and the nature of the neighborhood, he believed that he witnessed a drug transaction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that, based upon the facts of the case, the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest and search Dunlap.
Rule: Police training and experience, without more, is not a fact to be added to the quantum of evidence to determine if probable cause exists, but rather a “lens” through which courts view the quantum of evidence observed at the scene.

However, if the police officer can testify that he has experience in this particular area and known the way specific transactions usually occur, this can be used as evidence
Every commercial transaction between citizens on a street corner when unidentified property is involved DOES NOT give rise to probable cause

In determining probable cause, all the detailed facts and circumstances must be considered:

The time
The street location
Use of a street for commercial transactions
Number of transactions
Place where items were kept
The movements and manners of the parties

Unprovoked Flight

Flight from a law officer can be counted as a factor in the establishment of probable cause….but it is not sufficient to establish probable cause; the officer must be able to point to other specific information

Pennsylvania v. Dunlap

US. Supreme Court- 2008 (petition for writ of certiorari)

A police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists