Miccio_CrimPro_Fall_2010.docx
CRIM PRO: MICCIO
Outline
State officer: For 4th to apply it must be by an officer of the state. If search is performed by a third party and not under the direction of the state there is not 4th Am violation- US v. Jacobsen(12)
I.
4th: seizure requirement
· RULE(seizure):
· (1) Absent physical force, have to demonstrate that there is a show of authority that is submitted to by the defendant.
· (1)Seizure determined by citizen’s actions rather than officer conduct. A RPP in suspects position would believe he was not free to leave once stopped. (Look at TOC: environment, purpose, duration, verbal command)
· California v. Hodari(1)-If suspect flees and tries to dispose of evidence, or does anything other than immediately submit, his actions will be admissible even though no PC or RASCAAF at initial ordeal.
II.
Random Stop (Highway):
· RULE: Need individualized suspicion (RASCAAF/PC) when pursuing a goal of “general crime control,” but where there is a specific law enforcement goal, as long as the method used is reasonably related to that goal, no individualized suspicion required AND the interest of the state outweighs interest to individual-City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (3)
· EX: Method of state action (Sobriety checkpoint)=related to=policy goal (Highway Safety)-Michigan State Police v. Sitz(2)
III.
Stop & Inquire (Pedestrian):
· RULE: When subject to Stop & Inquire, individual has right to voice opinion and refuse. Without more cannot be made into RASCAAF/RASPAD-Norwell v. Cincinati(3)
· Asking for ID: Can refuse without RASCAAF/RASPAD-Brown v. Texas(3)
· Bus case: US v. Drayton(1)-Police need not inform passenger of right to cooperate. (go to consent)
IV.
RASCAAF/RASPAAD
· Terry Stop:
· Generally: Need Reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. (RASCAAF)-Terry v. Ohio (4)
· Ask for ID:
· RULE: If RASCAAF and a request for ID has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop the probably NOT OK to refuse request.
· Probably need a statute on point-Hiibel v. 6th J. Nevada (3)
· Informant:
· Reasonable s
– car lawfully seized.
V.
ARREST:
· Generally
· RULE: Need Probable cause for arrest-(RP would believe suspect committed a crime).
· Good Faith Error
· RULE: If error but good faith belief of PC to arrest then OK. Look to reasonableness of the belief through an objective/subjective test-Hill v. CA(6)
· Ex:
· Wrong ID: If X misidentifies and says he is D, ok to arrest X if PC for D’s arrest.-Hill v. CA(6)
· Law UnCon:Cop Doesn’t know law Unconstitutional- Arrest still ok if PC to believe he broke the law.-Michigan v. De Fillipo(6)
· Exception:
· RULE: No PC for Warrant need exigency:
· Crime must be sufficiently serious(jail sentence or felony) -Welsh v. Wisconsin(6)
· Exigency:
· Hot pursuit
· Threat to public safety
· Destruction of evidence
· Balance gov’t interest v. level of intrusion
