Criminal Procedure Roadmap
I. Incorporation
a. Doctrine of Incorporation – Criminal process has largely bee federalized by the systematic incorporation of the provisions in the Bill of Rights to state cases
i. Only two rights of the federal criminal defendant guaranteed by the Bill of Rights not required in state cases:
1. 5th Amendment right to grand jury indictment
2. 8th Amendment right to bail
II. Exclusionary Rule
a. Remedy whereby somebody who has been the victim of an illegal search or coerced confession can have the product of the illegal search or coerced confession excluded from any subsequent criminal prosecution
b. Limitations on Exclusion:
i. Exclusion does NOT apply to the conduct of grand juries
ii. Exclusion is NOT an available remedy in civil proceedings
iii. To qualify for exclusion, the search in question MUST violate either the federal Constitution OR a federal statute
iv. Exclusion is NOT an available remedy in parole revocation proceedings
c. Good Faith Defense to Exclusion
i. We will not exclude evidence where the police rely in good faith on a judicial opinion later changed by another opinion
ii. We will not exclude evidence where the police rely in good faith on a statute or an ordinance later declared unconstitutional
iii. We will not exclude evidence where the police rely in good faith on a defective search warrant
1. Four exceptions to good faith reliance on defective search warrant:
a. The affidavit underlying the warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable police officer would have relied on it
b. The warrant is invalid on its face (i.e., failure of warrant to state with particularity the place to be searched or the things to be seized.)
c. The police officer lied to or misled the magistrate
d. The magistrate has wholly abandoned his judicial role
d. Use of excluded evidence for impeachment purposes
i. Confessions inadmissible for failure to comply with the Miranda warnings may be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant’s trial testimony
ii. US v. Havens – All illegally seized evidence may be admitted to impeach the credibility of the defendant’s trial testimony
e. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
i. Generally, not only are we going to exclude all evidence that has been illegally seized, but we are going to exclude everything obtained or derived as a result of that original police illegality
ii. Three ways government can break the chain between an original illegal police action and some supposedly derived piece of evidence:
1. Showing they had a source of the evidence that is independent of the original police illegality
2. Inevitable Discovery
3. Intervening acts of free will on the part of the defendant
III. Arrest
a. Common Law power to effectuate warrantless arrests
i. Felony – Police may arrest without a warrant for a felony any time they have reasonable grounds to believe that a felony was committed and this person did it
ii. Misdemeanor – Police may arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed within their presence
iii. An arrest warrant is generally not required prior to arresting someone in a public place. However, the non-emergency arrest of an individual in his own home requires an arrest warrant
b. Stationhouse Detention
i. Police need probable cause to arrest you to compel you to come to a police station either for interrogation or
ix. Garbage set out on the curb for collection
c. NOTE: School kids and parolees have a lessened expectation of privacy
i. Sampson v. California
ii. TLO; Veronia School District v. Acton
b. O’Brien on Search:
i. Search conducted pursuant to a warrant:
1. Was the warrant valid?
a. Probable Cause –
i. Apply the appropriate test
b. Scope of Warrant –
i. Was the scope of the search controlled by the warrant or the affidavit?
1. Good Faith Exception to the exclusionary rule allowed because the officers relied on affidavit and search of bystanders
2. No Good Faith Exception to exclusionary rule allowed because police prepared the paperwork
2. Did the search exceed the scope of the warrant?
a. Did the search of persons not named in the warrant exceed the scope of the warrant?
i. Issue turns on whether the warrant or the affidavit control the scope of the search
b. Even if the warrant a
