Criminal Procedure-Underlying Values and Goals
The Major Goal behind any legal system should be respect. With respect comes compliance and rule following.—Not necessarily catching people who break the rules.
The major reason why someone would respect a legal system would be if they thought it was fair.
Fairness can be established in two ways: Constant Tension
Brightline: all violations will be treated in the same manner with the consistent outcome so that we can be assured of accurate results- Puts faith in the rule.
Case by Case: violations are evaluated on as they come and allows for dispensation of justice based on circumstances to assure an accurate result-puts faith in the participants
Nature and Scope of the 14th Amendment
14th Amendment: No stat shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; no deny to no person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Did not totally incorporate the proceeding 13 amendments-they didn’t automatically apply to the states (Palko)
However, through Duncan v. Louisiana (6th right to jury trial, 4th Mapp v. Ohio (exclusionary), and 5th Malloy v. Hogan)-those amendments were incorporated under the directive of the 14th amendment thus providing an second chance for any alleged facial violation of the 4/5/6 to always have violated the due process clause of the 14th.
14th Amendment Paradigm: A tool to limit a police officer’s (the state’s) power.
1) It applies because its been incorporated
2) It applies substantively or procedurally
Substantively-the behavior shocks the conscience and offends sense of justice (objective standard for the Judge
Examples of how it applies: Bodily invasion
1) Rochin-Forced to throw-up because of suspected drug swallowing-evidence was used against him. Can’t be suppressed under 5th because the 5th amendment only applies to testimonial evidence according to (Anderson)
But under 14th, an arrest that shocks the conscience and offends a sense of justice can not stand
Irvine limits shock the conscience standard to situations involving coercision, violence or brutality
Breithaupt-body invasion okay-does not shock conscience because blood drawn was done by doctor and had become routine law enforcement strategy
Schmerber: (due process)-blood test was obtained based on pc and was reasonable one performed in reasonable manner (Also for later under a SIA, search for evidence presented an exigent circumstance because of dissipation of alcohol.
Procedurally-for confession cases-go to whether statements were voluntarily given and rights were voluntarily waived. For searches, goes to weather there was voluntary consent. (This will be a subjective measurement of suspect in the circumstance
Supervisory Powers- under McNabb, these powers only work in federal court because the court’s powers were enacted through legislation-not constitutionally based.-whereas with constitutional violations, the federal courts can overturn state court decisions.
If supervisory powers do not come into play-dealing with state law-then litigant must show standing:
1. Paynor- person must have an adversarial interest in the dispute (can’t sue about police confiscating your friend’s brief case.
2. Person’s interest must be based on a constitutional wrong (4/5/6-14th)
In Hastings-0nce C of A found harmless error (no 5th Amendment violation) in state case, can’t overturn because would be using supervisory powers for crim procedure in state case
Eg Case: Minn V. Carter- an overnight guest has the protection of the 4th (privacy) but someone who is just in host’s home with host’s permission does not have standing to challenge evidence obtained in a searched alleged to be illegal.
Arrest, Search and Seizure
4th Amendment: The right of people to be secure in the 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 seached and the person or things to be seized
Main interests: 1) Liberty 2) Possessory 3) privacy
Definition of Probable Cause-generally-a reasonable basis for believing that a crime has been committed
Standard for Issuing a search Warrant: (Gates)-Probable Cause defined-given all the circumstances
Reads in a right to privacy from the concept of ordered liberty
Says 14th Amendment incorporated Fourth Amendment to the states so the exclusionary rule-that is evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment must be excluded.
Exclusionary rule-all evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment can not be used in trial
1) Deter police from illegally searching and seizing people-(police state of mind is relevant)
2) Judicial Integrity-back to valuing/respecting system as a whole-seen as “fair”
a) Leon-The Good Faith Exception-Mapp is a constitutional right-thus a state can follow it in every instance but there is now an exception that states can choose to alot to law enforcement-don’t have to exclude in the following circumstances
Implication: IF SC reviews a case where state doe
on exposes to public is not protected-thus if he was shouting and cops overheard-he his intent was to expose conversation and no intention to keep private
Factors to determine if something is a protected area or interest
Place of business-Yes- See v. Seattle
Nature of place-
Curtilage vs. open fields (Oliver) (cartilage is the area of land which extends the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of the man’s home-
Place of Observation
Looking from open field: no privacy interest and vantage point into open barn-no protected either so no warrant needed (Dunn)
Flyover: (Ciraolo) 1000 ft. okay-because owner couldn’t expect that activity to be private
(Riley) -400 ft. helicopter view through open roof of green house-see pot- Its not weather the flight was permitted by law but rather again to the property owners expectation that a helicopter couldn’t fly over at 400 feet. He exposed himself to it
What the person does to protect:
-Garbage: not protected interest because defendant put trash out for anyone to take-permitted for the opportunity to be exposed. Greenwood
Car in Public-
(cardwell v. Lewis)-paint sample taken okay-no search
(new york v. class) Vin not private
Phone # that one dials out—not protected interest-exposure to 3rd party
Technology-Enhancement of senses
Natural Senses-okay (Mankani)-overhearing through wall in motel
Enhancing natural senses (flash light/ binoculars) okay but
Kyllo-(thermal imaging sensory enhancing technology) to gain information from the interior of the home that couldn’t otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into the (protected area) is a search
But electronic Tracking through public could have evidence same info so beeper that shows where transmitter is moving through public okay BUT in Karo-when beeper reveals info that could not be obtained with visual surveillance
Dow-ariel photograph-enhanced sense but not as intrusive as a satellite (so the tech not available to the public factor isn’t really relevant any longer)
Place-Dog sniff in public place is not a search